TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 20, 1998

• 1539

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nikel Belt, Lib.)): I'd like to apologize to the interpreters for giving them the impression that the meeting had already begun. It's beginning know.

[English]

Last time we met and called this meeting, I suggested that we have a committee of the whole—which means all members—for a steering committee meeting to plan the work for the session.

• 1540

My understanding is that we agreed to that, and that's what we should do today. That means not having to deal with motions that were presented as notices of motion. If you want to change that, you control this committee, as usual. The majority rules here.

Therefore,

[Translation]

We've distributed to all members of the committee a copy of the letter sent to me by the Minister. I had asked him to give us a heads-up on the bills he intended tabling to help us establish our schedule and make sure that we had whatever time was necessary to examine them. The legislative programm he is suggesting is rather heavy.

[English]

In addition, you have a list of issues that you brought to our attention. This list is as it was presented.

New members, as you know, if you want an issue studied or dealt with, you need only present it to the chair at a meeting and it goes on the list. We don't need a vote to get on the list.

At this point, we have to start thinking about prioritizing: if we do have time to do a study, which one do you want to do first? You may want to take some time to think about this, having the list in hand, or you may want to deal with this today. It's up to you.

On your agenda you have the three notices of motion that were presented to us at the last meeting. On unanimous consent we can deal with those now or—

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Are you asking for unanimous consent?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —you'll do that in the unanimous consent first?

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Bailey is asking for unanimous consent.

Do we have unanimous consent to deal with these three motions now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We have unanimous consent. We will deal with them.

The first one is a review of Canada's international air transportation policy, proposed by Roy Cullen. The motion is: that the Standing Committee on Transport invite, separately, Air Canada, Canadian Airlines International and officials from the federal Department of Transport for an in camera meeting to review Canada's international air transportation policy.

Now let's be clear on this. By this motion are we putting this issue ahead of the list?

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: Is that what the intent is? Or is the intent just to get on the list?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, without being engulfed in procedural issues, I put this forward as a suggestion last session and then we recessed, so I would like to have it considered within the range of priorities of the committee. Whether it is first in the queue or not is not important to me, but I'd like to see it discussed within the overall context of the priorities of the committee in the months ahead.

The Chairman: This, Mr. Cullen, is the same as number five in the list of issues?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Therefore, do you agree that we will go to the list of issues and prioritize? If we're in the process of prioritizing the issues, we are not in the process of dealing with the three motions. It can't be done in parallel.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the motion is redundant in view of the fact that we have it on the list of items you have presented to us.

But I do have a question regarding the motion before I vote on it, and that is, if this is to become an item on the agenda of the standing committee, why is the mover recommending that it be held in camera?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I can respond to that.

The Chairman: You may, keeping in mind that we haven't agreed that this motion will be addressed or is acceptable at this time.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: In fact, in terms of procedure, I'm prepared to withdraw the motion. That doesn't bother me, as long as we consider it within the context of the priorities for the committee.

• 1545

Why I suggested we have it in camera, why I want it discussed, is that I've heard a lot of different stories from Air Canada, Canadian Airlines, Pearson International Airport, departmental officials and the minister about whether the direction we're going in is the right direction or not.

Of course, Canadian Airlines has a specific interest. So does Air Canada. I've heard about the hub moving from Toronto to Boston and I've been told that's hogwash.

I'd like to judge for myself. I'd like to hear the parties explain their positions, their viewpoints, and have the department brief us, hopefully in terms of the public interest. Then we can reach our own conclusions. We can speak to people eyeball-to-eyeball.

I've suggested that it be in camera because I don't want this to become a soapbox for the airlines to bring the media in and have a huge confab about whether Canadian Airlines is being prejudiced or whether Air Canada is. I prefer that it be a reasoned sort of discussion within the committee, and then we'll come up with some ideas that we might want to present to the House.

The Chairman: The message to all members is that addressing an issue does not necessarily mean undertaking the full study of it. It would be very acceptable for one of you—as I'm sure Mr. Cullen will be trying to do—to convince the committee to invite witnesses to help us decide if we should do a study. It's a very good practice.

Do you agree, Mr. Cullen, that we won't deal with this motion because you're on the list?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that's fine. In regard to the concept, what I'm saying is that I think this should be a priority. It's for this committee to decide where it stacks up in the overall scheme of things. I'll argue my case and everyone will argue their cases and we'll reach some conclusion.

The Chairman: Okay.

We will have a meeting—and you can do it today if you want—to deal with the priority list. I know that's going to be a fun meeting. At that time, everybody will have an equal opportunity to push for their issues.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence here.

We have seven issues on the list. Before we prioritize these issues, would it not be wise to go through them and get a statement so that when we come back we'll have more understanding of what the issues are?

If we do that, then we can take the time to go through the seven issues or any that they want to add, depending upon the time. Why don't we do that, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the committee, so that when we do get into the act of putting them in order of priority, we have some information on them first?

The Chairman: We can go through that exercise before we leave today, keeping in mind that three of the seven members are not here.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I will speak for Mr. Morrison.

The Chairman: You will?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Fine. We will do this before we go home.

Therefore, item 1(a) has been dealt with.

Item 1(b) is a motion on private member's bills, by Lee Morrison: that the committee agrees, when a private member's bill is referred, to put the bill on its agenda at the earliest possible time in order to invite the member to explain the bill to the committee and to decide on its work plan.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This motion was raised previously in regard to a private member's bill that's being referred. It gives much more of an opportunity. I wish Lee were here to speak to it, but the committee can decide at that time how it would operate. I think that's wise, whether it's a private member's bill from the government side or the opposition side. I think it's a good piece of legislation.

The Chairman: Anyone else?

Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, isn't this covered in procedure? Members always want to reinvent something, and then we have more rules. It's like having the rules of a game. We already have something that says it has to be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. Do we then layer it with another thing that says the same?

What are the rules of procedure for the committee with regard to private member's bills? Does the clerk know? What happens to private member's bills?

The Chairman: I can tell you the rule in this committee is that everything is brought to the committee immediately. I don't play games. I have not played games with you. You know that. The day that I start playing games in favour of my party or my government or my minister, I would hope that somebody would straighten me out.

I was treated that way with a private member's bill when the committee did not deal with it. I certainly will not do that to you. If you feel more secure having that motion in place, I can live with it, but you know that I've kept everything right in your face from the beginning.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: The question still remains. Is there already something on the books with Beauchesne's or the rules of the committee that says a private member's bill should be dealt with expeditiously?

• 1550

The Chairman: Yes, but where you get into problems is with the priority. If you have other business that is more important, the private member's bill comes after it. What happened last time happened before the election; it was stalled until the election came.

But the committee is master of its own destiny. If you don't deal with a bill within a number of days, I understand, it's deemed to be approved. That is really the rule.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, if we agree to this motion does that mean— Let's say we're in the middle of reviewing legislation referred by the House and suddenly a private member's bill comes up. Do we have to stop and immediately have a discussion about the private member's bill? Or do we have set priorities in motion already at that point?

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, other committees have already adopted this particular motion in principle. What it basically means, as our chairman has very well and clearly defined it, it that it's not tossed aside, that it will get in at the earliest possible time. And it's up to the officers and ourselves to make sure that happens, that it doesn't just become a formality and then fade away someplace. That's all we're asking for—but yes, we want it in a motion.

The Chairman: I can tell you that as your chair I have no problems with this at all. Any bill, from a private member or from the minister, will be brought to you immediately. I have no problems with it.

Are you ready for the question? Those in favour? Those against?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Motion 1(c) from Lee Morrison is about Order-in-Council appointments: that pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), whenever an Order in Council for appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the resumé of each appointee.

At this point, only the chair receives this. I have committed to you that everything I get is shared with you, and you have been receiving copies of the Order-in-Council appointments. The c.v. was not always included, but once you have the name it's very easy to get any information you want.

So that practice is being done, and not only for this. Every letter I get I send to my staff to have it sent to the clerk to share with all of you. Every single piece of correspondence I get is shared with you. If you feel more secure having this in place, it only puts into written form the practice that we have adopted.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Gotta kill more trees.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on this motion? Ready for the question?

Those in favour, three, and those against, one.

We can't have meetings with four out of twelve voting. We should at least have a quorum voting.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: May I speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: The last vote has been called and I'm not accepting that vote. There is no room for abstention in our rules.

Do you wish to debate this motion?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey, do you agree that we allow debate, having called the vote?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chairman, when Robert made rules or Beauchesne made rules, the name of the game was to allow the meeting to function in a certain way, and whenever we make up a whole bunch of other rules, it just clouds the issue.

The point I want to make is that you said you share this information, but what I think is more important than that, environmentally, is that the thing should be available for those who want it. I have an idea that when we produce a whole bunch of documents, we're killing a lot of trees, and most people don't even look at the damn things.

An hon. member: Hear, hear, Ovid.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: When every member gets this paper, we're shuffling all this stuff around. I think you should have it available. Those who want to see it should have it. But I don't like the idea that every time something happens we print more stuff. It costs more money and we're killing more trees. Sorry.

• 1555

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to elaborate a little more on your earlier comments. The information is there, it's public, and for he or she who wishes to secure more information on the appointment, it's not like it's locked in a safe and nobody can have access to it.

And I sort of agree with my colleague, Mr. Jackson. It's a repetitious exercise that really isn't necessary. It's transparent, and I think it'd be just a useless exercise to bring every resumé here, make photocopies, and pass it around. Quite frankly, whoever has an interest can go and secure the resumé for their own interest.

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I was just going to mention, Mr. Chairman, that the clerk should always have a copy available for anyone who wants a copy instead of distributing it to everyone, and if any member on either side of the House wishes to have a copy he or she can direct that either through your chair or directly to the clerk.

The Chairman: I want to clear up what is happening and what will continue to happen regardless of this motion. The chair of the committee is provided with a copy, and I have made sure that everyone gets a copy of everything I get. I will continue to do that.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): I am not much in favour of that proposal either but for reasons different from Mr. Jackson's who's afraid that we'll be killing those poor little trees. I worked in the pulp and paper industry for 14 years and no one has yet manage to produce paper using smoke signals unless you come back to the days of smoke signals. It's true that this is the computer age and that you can always manage to avoid wasting paper, but what concerns me is the efficacity of the exercise. I don't think we should ask our clerk to systematically ask for each and every curriculum vitae.

You're telling us that you send us everything you get, but you still don't have a copy of the CV. For about a year, now, the members of this committee have been getting notice of order in council appointments in French and in English. I think we should change the motion so that anyone asking for it can get the CV. I'm sure that it's not necessary to get a copy of all CVs of all people appointed by order in council in the transportation field. In any case, I think that you get them, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I've always provided some data on the candidates and I give that to the clerk so he can distribute a copy to all the members of the committee. If, in the past, you were not sent a given CV, rest assured that it was not because I had not asked for it to be sent to you. I've always wanted to share all the documents I get with you and I will continue to make sure that I share them because everything I get as Chair of this committee belongs to you.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'd like us to look at the wording of this motion:

—the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the resume of each appointee.

We'd like our clerk to undertake to get a CV. You get a summary that was made up and not a CV, and it would have to be looked at. In any case, I don't want to be nitpick because we do have lot of other things to do.

The government was elected to govern. We know how appointments are made. They are often political appointments. I'm not saying that I don't agree. But if we want to satisfy our curiosity and make sure that it's really Liberals who are being appointed, then the people who want to know that should ask to get the CV and that should be the end of that. Let's not systematically ask our clerk to spend too much time on this because she does have a lot of other things to do.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I've heard talk today about how circulating resumés for appointments somehow clouds the issue. Well, what does denying transparency and clarity on this issue do to cloud the issue?

• 1600

It's far better to have clarity and transparency in terms of who is getting an appointment, why they were appointed and whether or not they have a background than to go ahead and allow this type of thing to be kind of buried and shuffled away. Certainly the committee members here should have a right to have access to that and have it distributed to them.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is the whole idea that this “kills trees”. Well, judging by that type of argument, we shouldn't produce Hansard, we shouldn't have printed materials in terms of what members have said. Part of the reason we have printed transcripts of what was said and part of the reason we print things on paper is that it is there for the public record.

And that's what we need today, Mr. Chairman. We need to have this as a matter of public record. And certainly, having something as a matter of public record is more important than the issue of whether or not one particular member on the committee feels as though killing trees is too great a sacrifice.

The Chairman: Before I go to Mr. Calder, remember that every appointment is shared with every member of this committee.

An hon. member: That's right.

The Chairman: I remind members that you have made a decision that whenever one of you wishes to discuss one appointment or any appointment, it will automatically go on the agenda. I don't know what more we can do other than putting it in writing, and I have no problems with that.

Mr. Calder, please.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't think this is an issue of whether we're killing trees or anything else like that. I've worked on this committee before and I've found this committee to be one of the most efficient and most transparent committees I've worked with.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Murray Calder: And that's because of our chair.

An hon. member: That's right.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Murray Calder: So what is happening here now is that something you are already doing is going to have to be part of the format of how things are done. As soon as that happens, you're going to make our clerk that much busier with something that right now isn't a necessity to do and is already there. You're making it a necessity. You're putting on an extra workload where I don't think workload is needed. Because we're already efficient and it makes us more efficient and we're already transparent and the thing has already been done. If it works, don't fix it.

The Chairman: Mr. Cannis, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Anders.

Mr. John Cannis: A quick question, Mr. Chairman. If I recall what you said in your opening statement, you have a copy of the c.v. and it's available to the committee members. So if there's any transparency to be questioned— In my view, it's there and it's available in response to Mr. Anders and Mr. Bailey or to whoever has the concern. The resumé is there. It's not like it's being hidden away. Again, I stress that.

Quite frankly, I am saying that I don't want a copy of every resumé that goes through there. If there is one specific c.v. or resumé that I want to look at, I know I can come to you and say, “Mr. Chairman, I want so-and-so's resumé”, and it will be available to me.

Please confirm this, if you will. Unless some of the members here did not clearly understand what you said—and I'll close with this—you indicated to all of us that the resumé is there, it's available, you have it, and we can access it any time we wish. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: What I get is a condensed resumé that acquaints people with the experience and the qualifications, and that's it. Anything else that—

Mr. John Cannis: Available to all of us.

The Chairman: Well, I forwarded it with the intent that you were getting copies of it. I will ensure that you have a copy of everything, not just this but every letter I get from your constituents. Everybody gets a copy of all documents I receive that are addressed to the chair of the transport committee. That's been the practice since the first day I was your chair.

The Clerk of the Committee: Ils sont traduits.

The Chairman: And I'm told that they are translated before you get them.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with Mr. Calder that the intent of this motion—and at the time we had it in being, you didn't know, Mr. Chairman, nor did any of us, even what committee we were going to be on—was to make sure that we had the same service going into this new setting that we had in the past. I know that Mr. Morrison was here and we discussed it and encouraged it, and we were glad to see the chairman back because we knew that this was there.

That didn't guarantee that at the time this motion was made we were going to have the same chair. Indeed, I sat on about seven different committees last year and the way in which those other committees operated fell far short of this committee.

• 1605

This motion was not a question of your credibility or what you were doing; it was a question of us not knowing who the chairman was going to be. I want to make that very clear to the hon. members opposite.

The Chairman: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, this boils to down to whether or not somebody wants to have transparency with regard to appointments and, therefore, transparency with regard to political appointments. Somebody made the statement that if it works “don't fix it”.

Unfortunately, the problem is that we have had situations where it doesn't work and it needs fixing. From my family's background with CN rail, I know that CN rail has suffered numerous political appointments of people who were not the best qualified for the job and knew little or nothing of the railways and how they run in this country. And if we can have a chance to look at those resumés, determine those backgrounds and maybe put a little heat on the government in terms of some of the questionable appointments, the people of this country will be better served.

The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the best way for this thing to operate is that it should be available for all members and I understand that the clerk— I want to make this clear: I don't want the damn copies of this stuff. If I need it, there's a library where I can refer to it, but I think it's a waste of a lot of time and money for somebody to print that many copies of that particular document. It has nothing to do with transparency.

The Chairman: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): The chair has assured us that they are supplying the resumés as they come in. Do I understand that correctly?

The Chairman: What I see is the abbreviated version, I'm sure.

Mr. Bill Casey: This motion asks you to seek out resumés that you don't get. Is that correct? If there is an appointment and if there is a resumé accompanying it that you don't get, this asks you to get it.

The Chairman: It asks the clerk to do it. Remember—I don't get paid more to be chair.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I don't get extra staff.

An hon. member: That's why we paid you the big bucks!

The Chairman: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Could there be a compromise that the clerk does arrange to obtain resumés? Then they're available as requested. Is that possible? But this demands that all resumés be obtained and circulated.

An hon. member: It already is.

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: What we have to determine is whether the department or whoever appoints has a big information package before making the appointment. What I get is the name of the individual and an abbreviated— Well, it's an explanation of their qualifications and their experience. To me, it's enough to decide on as to whether I want to dig deeper and do my investigation—

An hon. member: That's enough for me too.

The Chairman: —because I don't plan—

Mr. Bill Casey: Do you always get those?

The Chairman: Yes, I always get the abbreviated ones.

I don't have the staff and I will not dig into every appointment to do all that research for you. I wish I could, but I can't—and I know the clerk can't.

The description of qualifications and experience should be enough to guide you in your research. What we have said is that if you are concerned about an appointment, you mention it to the chair and it will be on the agenda. I don't ask for permission; it's automatically on. What more can I do?

Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would seem, Mr. Chairman, from what Mr. Bailey explained just a minute ago, that this exercise is now no longer necessary. You clarified the apprehensions the members from the Reform Party had in anticipation of who was or was not going to lead this committee. It would seem that they are now satisfied with the way that you, as a chair who's done a tremendous job in the past, approached this issue in the past, and they brought this proposal forward not knowing whether you were going to chair again.

Now that you are again leading this group, it would seem that this is not necessary. Am I correct? I guess I'm putting the question to Mr. Bailey.

We really don't need to go through this exercise. What that what you were referring to, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes. Basically that part is correct. What we have here are assurances, verbal assurances, and as long as we're in this group and the same group of people is here with the same chair, that would be fine.

However, that can change at any time, and that's what this motion was for. I don't want to belabour this anymore. Do whatever you want to do.

That was the intent, and I want that clearly understood by the members opposite as well as the chair.

• 1610

The Chairman: Now, do you want to vote on this or do you want to reserve the opportunity to present it later if it becomes a problem? That's the decision you can make.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I just wanted to speak to the issue. If the practice has been to provide resumés, then why not standardize it? We have a motion here to go ahead and standardize this, and therefore, if the chair changes or whatever happens, we would have the practice standardized. I think that's perfectly fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder, Mr. Sekora, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay. To answer Mr. Anders' question, the practice has been that you have been giving us a summary of the c.v.

This motion doesn't really specify what the resumé or c.v. is going to be or what is going to constitute it. Is it going to be a summary copy of the c.v.? Is it going to be the full c.v.? Does it need to have attachments to it backing up all the claims made on the c.v.? This is a very general and open statement.

Quite frankly, we're going through the procedure right now, everybody on this committee seems to be quite happy with it—I know I am—and if a problem arises with it in the future, we can bring it forward then. Right now there isn't a problem. I go back to my original statement: it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

The Chairman: Mr. Sekora, then Mr. Cullen, and then we'll call the question.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I have just a question to begin with. If a chairman changes in mid-season or two or three months from now—

Mr. Ovid Jackson: He becomes a minister or something.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes, or whatever—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: Say that again.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Or the leader of the opposition, which they need badly.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lou Sekora: But that can be changed, right? Another motion like this can be put on the floor. So why are we arguing about something that's never happened, about something that may happen? It's like saying we know there's going to be an earthquake 250 years from now so we have to prepare for it today. That's dumb.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, when I look at the work this committee has to do and the priorities that we have to address, to think that we've wasted taxpayers' money while we debate this picayune point for a procedure that's already working—

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I think we should put the question and get on with it.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: We'll allow another comment from Mr. Anders and then we'll go to the question.

Mr. Rob Anders: Frankly, I don't think that transparency in government is asking too much.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand this, we're seeking assurances that we at least get what you get, so in that way we can do the digging with regard to some of these appointments.

Isn't that fair?

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour? Those against?

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: The motion is defeated. And I can tell you that in true procedures, I should stop doing what I've been doing—

An hon. member: But you're not going to.

The Chairman: —because we voted against your motion. I will continue to do it, but you have to think before you present motions, because—

An hon. member: If you don't, let us change it.

The Chairman: —when you ask me to continue doing something that I am doing and the committee votes against it, I should stop doing it.

An hon. member: Stop doing it, then.

The Chairman: I will not stop doing it because I said that I would share everything.

When you bring motions you have to think of the consequences.

The Chairman: If you wish—

Mr. Lou Sekora:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] I'll go and stop with Gray for five months. I really like him.

An hon. member: I'm not saying I—

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Let's just give each other a chance and we'll do a lot more work that way.

Now, we have two more issues to deal with, one that I want to deal with in camera. We have the list of issues, and we said that we would give you time to speak on your issue. Do you wish me to do a round table, where you have an opportunity to try to convince your colleagues that your issue is the most important?

My next question for you is, do you wish to deal with prioritizing today or do you wish to deal with that at another meeting?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Let's go back to my original suggestion. We have seven here. If you put a time limit on each one you would guarantee the conclusion of the meeting. At the same time, every member of this committee would have an opportunity to hear the point of view, walk away with that information and leave prioritization until the next meeting. That's what I suggest.

• 1615

The Chairman: Do you agree with this? Do you want more debate on that point?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: On that, Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if we could get every presenter of a motion to describe his priority succinctly, and then, maybe, we should have an opportunity to at least express some views or ask some questions.

The Chairman: Do you prefer having a meeting just on that?

An hon. member: No, let's skip—

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I'm listening.

Mr. Roy Bailey: What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, in light of Mr. Cullen's comment, is that if each member did his bit, with a five-minute limit, we'd be through in a little over half an hour. At that time, the meeting would adjourn. We'd be able to come back and have an opportunity at that time to have within our own minds which points we want to prioritize, rather than trying to do it now.

The Chairman: Would you agree that at the next meeting we allow those who are not here to take their five minutes if they choose to?

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

We'll deal with that issue. Do we do it that way or is there another way suggested?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So the idea at the next meeting, then, would be that we'd ask— I'm just thinking about if someone describes their proposal and we sort of walk away wondering if it really means this or that and we have to wait a week and then come back to clarify. Why couldn't we ask a question or two of the presenter? At least we'd go away with the knowledge of what exactly they're talking about.

Mr. Roy Bailey: But I think if we're careful, Mr. Cullen, we can do that within their time and then move on—just move very quickly. You could spend the rest of this meeting on one single issue, but I think we want the presenter to make a statement and entertain a couple of questions; put the five-minute clock on and let's move on.

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I think we have to be a little cautious here, Mr. Chairman. I'm not too sure exactly where this is going to be leading us. We're dealing with these issues and identifying specific personal areas of concern or whatever. What we're really doing here, I hope, is identifying a general area where all members of the committee, we hope, will obtain further information, whatever it might be, in future meetings.

I'm not too concerned about whether you like this or that and so forth, any specific little thing like, let's say, something about the Railway Act in southern Saskatchewan. What I'm concerned about is national highway policy or national railway policy, a broader context, rather than something very specific and narrow. Isn't that right?

The Chairman: I'll explain to you what we are doing here. As your chair—and if I'm wrong, challenge me right now—let me explain that we are bringing the issues to the committee that individuals on this committee would like this committee to study. That means travelling and doing the whole bit—producing a report.

What you are doing is working—and you will have an opportunity to lobby one another—to convince everyone that your issue is the top one that we should be studying. If you can do that, when this committee decides to do a study that is the one that gets done, unless at a given point somebody else comes in— Because you remember the way we've been working; the majority rules here. You can set the priority list and say that at the next meeting you want to attack that list again. And if the majority says yes, you control the agenda.

So what we're doing now is listing issues that we will be studying if we choose to do the studies. Okay?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to walk away from today knowing exactly what Mr. Casey means when he says we should look at a national highway system and, likewise, I would like to be able to explain to colleagues what I mean. Then we'll come back next meeting and we'll set some priorities.

An hon. member: And start voting.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes.

The Chairman: But you will have time in the meantime to talk to each other. At the next meeting, before we vote, you can have your debates. You'll be able to question and have the debate you want. Do you agree that we give five minutes to explain why you think your—

Mr. Sekora, I'm sorry. You mentioned before that you wanted to speak.

Mr. Lou Sekora: So for two items here, items 2 and 6, Mr. Morrison is not here, so that means he would be discussing it the next day or it would be taken out—

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey will represent him.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Okay.

What happens if next week or the week after, let's say, one of the members brings a new item?

The Chairman: If that member can convince the majority of members to make it number one, it goes.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: It's always you that makes the decisions, same as in the past.

We will start with the list the way it is.

Mr. Casey, five minutes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: I'm going to file a complaint.

An hon. member: It doesn't work.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: You're the teacher.

An hon. member: I told them to take that out of there because—

An hon. member: It doesn't get marks—

• 1620

Mr. Bill Casey: All right. We'll do this without a diagram. I'd really like to have one, but I don't.

I'm from Atlantic Canada, for those of you who don't know, and something has happened there that I believe will be reflected right across the country if something isn't done about it.

There is one Trans-Canada highway through New Brunswick. All traffic from central Canada and the U.S. converges on this one highway through New Brunswick. Every truck to Prince Edward Island uses that highway, as does every truck to Nova Scotia, as does every truck to Newfoundland—all through one highway.

The province of New Brunswick is now building a shortcut around this Trans-Canada highway and they're going to charge a toll on it. The province has just announced that it is going to generate a profit of $321 million on this toll, which will be used for health care.

Now basically, because there is no national highway funding program in the country, the province has cooked up this deal with a private sector partner—who really isn't a private sector partner, but the province calls it a private sector partner. They are exploiting their geographic location. Every truck to Newfoundland, every truck to Nova Scotia and every truck to P.E.I. is going to be forced through this highway.

There is a parallel Trans-Canada highway that was paid for 50:50, with half of the cost being paid for by our tax dollars. Everybody in this room, theoretically, paid for part of this highway. The province of New Brunswick is going restrict traffic on that highway even though it's there and viable and good. They're going to restrict the traffic on that highway and force every single truck through the tolls. And that is going to mean a profit. The tolls are going to generate a profit of $321 million for New Brunswick.

In Nova Scotia, they have the same thing, only shorter, and the profit is $121 million. So the two provinces are now projecting profits—and this is above and beyond the cost of the highways—of $472 million in transportation taxes. And that's all it is: a transportation tax. This is above and beyond the cost of the highway.

So P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are going to help pay for New Brunswick's health care because of geography and because there is no funding for a national highway program. There is no program that the province of New Brunswick can go to and say it wants a federal-provincial program—like it has had in the past—to help pay for this highway. Even though it's a regional highway serving four provinces, it goes through New Brunswick and New Brunswick is going to exploit the situation.

Right now the province of P.E.I. has announced that it may sue New Brunswick. They're going to try political pressure first, but they will sue New Brunswick.

And so has Brian Tobin in Newfoundland. He has said that they are going to sue New Brunswick because of the exploitation of their geography.

Anyway, the culprit here is that there is no federal highway program. There is no funding program. There is nothing the province can come to and ask to cost share. There is no standard program.

It's going to happen everywhere. And for us in Atlantic Canada, it's moving us further out to sea. We are a have-not region because we are too far from the major population centres of North America. We have resources, we have people and we have all kinds of things going for us in Atlantic Canada, but we're just too distant from our markets.

Effectively, this moves us further out into the Atlantic Ocean. This $472 million transportation tax to drive through New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is really going to hurt our ability to compete and to attract investment and jobs. It's going to make our resources less competitive and it's going to put up the price of every consumer product.

I would like to see us work on a national highway funding program for the whole country that every province can tap into. No matter what the ratio is, there should be a standard program.

And in our case, there should be a regional program. The highway through New Brunswick is not a provincial highway; it's a regional highway that serves four provinces, not one, and one province is controlling it 100% and exploiting the situation.

Questions?

The Chairman: We will not open this up to questions. I think that's what we had agreed. You still have a minute if you want it.

Mr. Bill Casey: I've pretty much said everything.

Let me tell you this—

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Bill Casey: —though. For one truck to drive through these tolls, one truck making one trip a day, it will cost $27,000 a year in tolls. That's a quarter of the price of the truck in most cases; $27,000 a year in tolls, one truck, one trip a day. That gives you an idea of how disadvantaged we will be and how we will not be able to attract investment or jobs to our region. It's a huge problem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Order.

The researcher will be reading the blues of this meeting and will be summarizing your comments, which will be made available to all members, as they will for future presentations.

Mr. Bailey on behalf of Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1625

I'd like to clear up a comment that was made. Whether it was Mr. Casey's program that he just announced under the “National Highway System”, I thought that in this committee— And certainly, last year this committee spent the last session working on passenger rail, on which we worked very diligently, Mr. Morrison and I. Even though it's a national issue on paper, as you well understand, it really isn't a national issue, because we've really looked at the core area. But in reality it was just that.

The reason that number two—a review of the transportation act—is on your list is that there are massive changes. I don't think I could explain in an hour the disaster which is happening on the prairies before my very eyes. Before Christmas, 270 elevators will be going down. Thousands of miles of railway track are being torn up. We have people trying to haul grain 100 miles—not kilometres—to get to a terminal. And because of that, this then becomes a national issue as well. The review of the Canadian Transportation Act with respect to grain transportation was advanced by two years to deal with this issue.

Now, sure, Justice Estey's report is not due until the end of December. However, this committee should be taking a look. Not only does this affect the prairies; it affects British Columbia and eventually it even affects central Canada—Ontario and Quebec—because of the rail transportation problem.

The question is basically about this, which I leave with you: this is the biggest change taking place in transportation in any part of Canada right now. Everything else is— I appreciate what Mr. Casey is saying, which is that his point is about a disaster as well, but the impact of the federal deregulation on the grain industry has put such an excessive burden on both provincial and municipal transportation systems that the whole system is breaking down right now. It's all breaking down, which bleeds us into highways, and I know we're going to try to get a motion in the House, which is independent of this committee, to put some kind of a hold on and keep these things in place.

Mr. Chairman, we have three provinces that have most of the rail lines in Canada and they're being destroyed before our very eyes. I think it's up to this committee to take a real sound look at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The third point is a request for an appearance, not a study. Do you agree to put this at the bottom of the list to discuss later? Does anyone wish to present on that now?

An hon. member: I think it was Mr. Morrison's, wasn't it?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think he would agree that it would be in line to put it at the bottom of the list right now.

The Chairman: We will put it at the bottom before prioritizing.

Number four, Bev Desjarlais.

The Clerk: She's not here.

Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes?

The Chairman: Are you prepared to present on her behalf? Or do you wish to allow her to do it at the next meeting? She will have an opportunity.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll save it until then because I wasn't aware of this.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais will have an opportunity later.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've described in very general terms why I think we should be reviewing Canada's international air transportation policy.

We will recall that before the recess our government announced certain routes for Canadian, certain routes for Air Canada, international routes to Asia and Europe and some new routes for Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. After that, Air Canada responded quite negatively. Of course, they had their own interests in mind, obviously. Canadian Airlines, if I recall, thought it was a reasonable policy.

When I talk to people in Air Canada in the context of open skies, they say that the competition is really not so much Canadian against Air Canada, but that we're losing huge amounts of business to the United States and the hub is moving south. When I talk to other senior people in the department, they say that's hogwash.

Air Canada says that it has invested its whole business future in the routes into Europe and is not going to give those up or share them easily. Canadian Airlines say that it has invested its future in its routes in Asia and is not prepared to share those very easily.

• 1630

Where I'm coming from, I believe we need to have a two-airline context. I lived on the west coast for 13 years, so it's not a question of saying, “Pick Air Canada or pick Canadian.” I think we know we need to keep our eye on the ball, that while we look at that sort of policy we're not allowing the other American airlines to come in and steal some of the business from under our noses.

My objective is to get more information on this topic, which I think is quite important. I want to have Air Canada people explain directly to us exactly what their views are on this new air transportation international airline policy and answer our questions, and I really want us quiz them on their business interests and what flexibilities they might have. We would do the same with Canadian Airlines.

Then we would have the departmental officials come in and give their views of this, of presumably what they're acting on, which is the public interest, hopefully. Then we would question them based on what we've heard from the two major airlines and reach some of our own conclusions as to where we see the policy going and what's in the best interest of Canadians overall, because I think it's an important policy area.

As I said before, I think it should be in camera to avoid a lot of grandstanding and media coming in here and turning it into a bit of a circus. Certainly my objective is to understand the issues better, to hear it straight from the horse's mouth, if I could put it that way, and to reach some conclusions, because there has been so much hearsay, gesticulating and postulating. People have obviously been expressing their own self-interest. I think we need to act in the interests of Canadians and I'd like to have a better understanding of the issues and where we go from here.

The Chairman: I have a question, Mr. Cullen. Are you asking this committee to undertake a major study of this or are you asking the committee to become acquainted with this situation by giving the stakeholders an opportunity to educate the committee?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I think this could be done in one session of this committee. We invite Air Canada, send them out; invite Canadian, send them out; invite the department, send them out. Then, out of that, we would sort of regroup as a committee and ask ourselves if we learned anything that we might want to report on. If it's just, “oh, well, it was good information and that's all we needed”, that's fine. But if there are areas of policy to which we feel can add some value, maybe we should at that point write a report and send it to the House.

But not having had the benefit of the information, I don't know what would come out of it. Maybe it would just be an information exchange. I'm not sure.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Number six is somewhat similar to Mr. Cullen's. The impact of the aviation user's fee—and believe me, I can't use the words I hear at various airports in this committee. As a matter of fact, some of the words I heard I didn't quite understand, but I knew it wasn't good English.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Roy Bailey: The question we need to ask ourselves as a committee is this: what impact is this mountain—and I say “mountain” because it's growing—of new aviation user fees, like NAV CANADA's, Transport Canada's, and airport fees, having on our general aviation?

And the question we have to ask ourselves as a committee is also this: is it in our national interest to charge general aviation into the ground? It is the prime recruiting ground for— Where are we going with all of this? What about Canada's commercial pilots? Is the military still going to turn them over and so on? The number of general pilots has been declining year after year. We don't get into that business at all.

When I go to the airport I want to ask if the user fees are being fairly applied. It's like Mr. Casey's position. They're going to charge a fee to use the highway, which is a designated fee to be turned over to health care.

And here we have something else going on. What guarantee does the public have? When you pay a fee at an airport, what guarantee do you have that it's going to be spent for the airport, for the training of pilots, for safety-related reasons and all of the other things that go with it? I think we have to take a look. This is going to grow by leaps and bounds. Every airport is starting to throw on some more fees.

• 1635

And the question that I think Mr. Cullen and Mr. Casey related to, which we have to ask, is this one: what is the purpose of these taxes or levies or whatever you want to call them, and who's giving them license to charge these fees? It's all in the name of transportation. It's not isolated to one province. It's a national thing. And I think this committee has a responsibility in regard to the air transportation tax to take a look at all these taxes.

And there's a final question I'll leave you with. What processes—if any—are in place to redress these should a user believe a fee is not justified? We know what happened to the one lady in Vancouver. She spent the night but she paid the next day, if I remember. What redress does any Canadian person have at the airport when he is told to give them $10? People have inquired. I don't know. Does anybody on this committee know? I don't think we do.

I think that's one of the things we should do this year. We should address this particular problem because it's growing at each airport.

Now that each airport has this kind of independent authority, do they each have the right to charge what they want, Mr. Chairman?

I think this committee better get its hands on this.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. In light of the fact that this committee did a super job in the report on passenger service in the past session and has presented it to the government, I'm a little concerned. I don't want to see that beautiful document and the kinds of ideas and concepts that you have there disappear.

In light of the fact that the government will be presenting a government response to your report in the immediate future, and keeping those two facts in mind and harmonizing them, I would like to make sure that we have room someplace on our agenda to take a further look and maybe decide which way we're going to be going in light of whatever happens following the government response.

Let's keep the door open as far as rail-passenger national policy is concerned.

An hon. member: Good idea.

The Chairman: That is recorded. Number three will be put at the end of the list. It will come back to you and you will have an opportunity to prioritize.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I don't know if I'm out of order in terms of procedure, but I don't see anything on the list about it and I thought we had discussed it. It's the whole question of Kyoto and greenhouse gases and the significant contribution that the transportation sector makes to greenhouse gases. I'm surprised that hasn't made it to the list.

The Chairman: Nobody brought it up.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I can assure you that if you get into number two that will be a major topic, because we're burning seven times as much fuel in getting our grain to a terminal as we did previously, and if you want to put those emissions in the air that's a big topic. You'll get it there.

The Chairman: Okay, but it doesn't prevent anyone from presenting any issue.

Mr. Jackson, before we go into the committee of the whole in camera.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Just one quick thing, Mr. Chairman, and on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Anders, as well—I don't know if he's new on the committee—just to make sure we keep this thing transparent, and because I don't want the mushroom treatment, am I going to get a copy of that item 7?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: We wouldn't want to keep you in the dark.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: You should have been given the list today. Everyone should have had it.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: No, not the list, the report. Is that public?

The Chairman: Oh, the report. Sure, yes.

An hon. member: It was a good report.

The Chairman: It was well received. The people who called for interviews this summer—I can say on your behalf—were happy with your report. It was very positive. It is your report and you get the credit for it.

Now we'll go in camera.

Oh, sorry, Monsieur Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: On behalf of Bev who wasn't able to attend, I just wanted to say that the notes she gave me deal with having the committee look at the possible proposal from the minister on deregulation of the passenger bus industry.

Is that part of this list? Should it be added?

The Chairman: Then this would be a request for us to add it to the list?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: It will be done. Just give it to the clerk.

An hon. member: Will mine be added too?

The Chairman: We will put them in writing and give them to the clerk. Otherwise, we'll be at meetings and somebody will say “slap that on” and I won't hear it and we'll lose control.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I thought you just said we'd put that one on and I—

The Chairman: Because it's in writing.

• 1640

Mr. Roy Cullen: Because it's in writing?

The Chairman: That's right. I will not accept verbal requests. Fair enough?

Thank you very much.

Well suspend for two minutes and go in camera. I have an issue to deal with that won't take very long.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]