TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 23, 1999

• 1532

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I would like to bring this meeting to order.

We are meeting today as a result of a request from four members of the committee who have publicly requested that we grant them a meeting. I have no intention of embarking on a debate of what took place, but I will say for the record that as chair of this committee, I was not asked to have a meeting.

So to my colleagues on this committee, whenever you want a meeting, you don't need national news to do it. You ask the chair. You know the way I operate, and I have always granted your wishes.

We will deal with the issues that were requested. I will say that I'm a bit offended, as your chair. I felt I had the confidence of this committee, and I felt I was serving this committee well. Being chair, for me, is my way of making a contribution, and I would feel more comfortable serving you if I felt I had your confidence.

That's the end of that. We'll deal with the three issues that were requested.

On what issue do you wish to speak?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré— Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Regarding what you just said, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: I have no intention to open this issue to debate.

Mr. Michel Guimond: But you did open it, Mr. Chairman. You'll have to respect—

The Chairman: We now turn to the review of the three issues raised by opposition members.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, although you said that you did not want to embark on a debate, you did open a few issues to debate and I think we should clarify a few things.

The Chairman: This is not a point of order. Let's deal with the four members' request. If you wish, you'll be able to discuss other issues at the end of the meeting. It's your meeting and you can decide to do so. If, as chairman, I don't have the privilege to make the comments I made, why have a chairman?

Mr. Michel Guimond: The Standing Orders of the House have to be applied.

[English]

The Chairman: Now we will proceed to the three items requested, for which we are meeting here today.

• 1535

I will mention to you that you also have an opportunity to request that we do the main estimates. This usually will be done if the members of the committee request it. Therefore I don't automatically have meetings for main estimates; you need only ask and the committee always grants that request. That will be dealt with after the three items.

Are there any other issues to be discussed after these four?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you want to open this debate once we have discussed the four issues on the agenda today?

Mr. Michel Guimond: I thought you said there were only three.

The Chairman: If you wish to discuss the main estimates, there will be four.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Has someone already added the main estimates to the agenda?

The Chairman: No, but the door will be open and it will be possible to discuss that when we are finished with the other three items.

Mr. Michel Guimond: When we are finished with the three items, I'd like to talk about your preliminary remarks.

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

The first issue was requested by opposition members Mr. Lee Morrison, Mr. Michel Guimond, Ms. Bev Desjarlais, and Mr. Bill Casey, which forces the meeting today. Do you all have copies of the first issue?

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): I think these issues were voted on and dealt with.

The Chairman: We'll go through them one at a time. Then I will open it to debate.

Mr. Lou Sekora: At least item 1 was dealt with.

The Chairman: As soon as I introduce that, I will give you the floor.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Okay.

The Chairman: We are asked to review the specific items listed relating to the national highway system, keeping in mind that what we are doing here as a committee is deciding if we wish... If we have voted on one of these, what you are deciding is if we will reconsider your decision to review or not. If we have not voted on these already, you will decide if you wish to deal with them or not. Is everybody clear on that?

The first one is to review the process, including public consultation, used to profoundly change the national highway system to include toll highways on the Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: We dealt with this item. Unfortunately I notice that certainly four people have asked for this to happen, and at the meeting where we voted on it, I believe two of the members from the Reform were not here. I think some replacements were here. Also—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have of point of order, Mr. Chairman. According to the Standing Orders of the House, a member cannot mention whether one of his or her colleagues was present or not at a meeting past or present. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his remarks regarding the presence or the absence of two members of the Reform Party at that meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: I will ask that we not mention who was here and who was not. It's a matter of record in the blues.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Fair enough. It's a matter of record. The fact is that four members of this committee were not here. I'm not going to name them. Is that fair enough? The fact is it was dealt with; it was voted on.

To me what's upsetting is the fact that each one of these members could have gone to the chair and asked for a meeting to be called. But no, they seem to think having a press conference is more important. Just political games and political ploys are being played—

The Chairman: We'll move back to the first issue on the sheet, please.

Do we agree that we have voted on the first item as a committee? That was an issue and we have voted on it. Does anyone object to that? We'll need a show of hands from those who feel item 1 has been voted on as a committee.

If you look at your 16 items, if I need to read it to you, the first one is “national highway systems”; that's everything on highway systems. This one says:

The process, including public consultation, used to profoundly change the national highway system to include toll highways on the Trans Canada highway.

My ruling is that it has been dealt with, but I feel very comfortable if you wish to challenge my ruling, and then we'll go to a vote as to whether my ruling is correct or not. This has been dealt with. Therefore the vote would be to reconsider, and I'll ask the clerk to correct me if I'm wrong, but to reconsider requires two-thirds.

Madame la greffière, to reconsider a motion voted on in the last month, is it two-thirds that we need, or a simple majority?

[Translation]

The Clerk: The same motion cannot be voted on again.

[English]

The Chairman: We can't pass it again.

The Clerk: Not the same motion. We need an amendment to the motion.

• 1540

The Chairman: My ruling was that it has been dealt with, and I stand open to be challenged by anyone. If you wish to challenge that, that's what you can do.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Yes, I would challenge that, Mr. Chairman. The item on this letter—

The Chairman: Just a moment. My ruling has been challenged. The clerk will take the chair and handle the challenge.

I have ruled that this has been dealt with by the committee, and my ruling has been challenged. Therefore I remove myself from the meeting. You handle the meeting.

The Clerk: You have the right to name a vice-chair to continue the meeting.

The Chairman: Okay, I'll ask Mr. Cullen to chair. This is municipal stuff, where you get the clerk.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)): Mr. Morrison, do you want to make your case?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes. I would contend that item 1 on this list in the letter is not the same as any of the items on the list of 16. There are differences there. I would also say that on the various occasions when people have attempted to raise this in committee, it has been met with a lot of obfuscation. In fairness, we should indeed consider this item and lay it to rest once and forever.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I agree with Mr. Morrison, and certainly no public consultation took place in regard to the issue at hand, so I don't think there's any question...

[Technical Difficulty—Editor].

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): I agree with that. We've not had any witnesses to outline the process that was involved. This subject is completely different from an overall, general study of the national highway system. This is a very specific request on two very specific projects totalling probably almost $200 million. There were never any witnesses, there was never any discussion, and there was never any debate about it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I stand to be corrected, but if I recall, we had the minister here on this specific issue, on these specific projects, for quite a lengthy discussion. He was very clear. If I recall, there was no ambiguity in his response or in his willingness to address this. In my view, then, in conclusion, we have indeed dealt with these projects in terms of whose jurisdiction they are and how it can be sorted out.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

Before I consult with the clerk, I'd say it seems to me that we did have the minister here and he talked about some of the jurisdictional issues. We had some votes on the priorities. One of those was the review of a national highway system, which includes this item plus many others, I suspect. We basically zeroed in on some priorities. But maybe I'll get some advice from the clerk.

I guess the interpretation of the chair was that this has already been dealt with and this is the same motion.

Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Chair, you were talking about jurisdictional issues between the provinces and the feds. This is not that at all. An internal decision was made within the Department of Transport—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Casey, I'm not getting into the substance of that debate again. It's a procedural issue we're faced with.

The Clerk: We discussed the subject of whether we're going to tackle it. The committee voted not to deal with it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Okay. Then I'll call the question on the chair's ruling.

(Chairman's ruling upheld)

The Chairman: Thank you.

On the second item, I need it to be explained how this differs from Ms. Desjarlais' request that we deal with it. That was voted on also, if it's the same thing. So I'll ask Ms. Desjarlais to explain how this differs from the motion she submitted two meetings ago, if I recall, where the committee decided not to deal with it.

• 1545

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: My motion was for us to review the Auditor General's report. In this case we're talking about specifically the department's failure to implement the Auditor General's report.

The Chairman: Your request two weeks ago was to—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: —review the Auditor General's report. In this case it says:

The failure by Department officials to implement the Minister of Transport's direction.

The Chairman: Okay, and now you are asking that this committee consider, I suppose, inviting the minister to request explanation as to the failure by the department officials to implement the Minister of Transport's direction, as outlined in the Auditor General's report, chapter 25, paragraph 25.48. Can you tell us what that chapter refers to?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Specifically it refers to direction that should have been followed within the Department of Transport as to the handling of specific contracts that would have gone through. I have the whole paragraph here, but—

The Chairman: Is that what is being reviewed by another committee of the House?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Is that what you're asking me here?

The Chairman: I'm asking you.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I thought we were discussing us discussing this here.

The Chairman: Is item 2 the same issue that is presently being reviewed by a committee of the House that has asked the Auditor General to explain it?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: The public accounts committee, yes.

The Chairman: Is this the same issue?

Mr. Bill Casey: They haven't looked at that.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: They have reviewed the handling of the specifics within the department. There was direction within the Auditor General's report that should have been implemented. Things happened within the Department of Transport. Guidelines should have happened that did not happen, and that's the reason for having the department come forward.

The Chairman: Okay. I'm not making a blanket statement that it's the same thing. I'm not saying that. It's very similar to what has been requested by another committee, but I will still open it to a vote by this committee to decide whether you want to address this issue, number 2, or not.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chair, I remember a meeting we had in this very room where we went over the projects we were going to priorize, and that one was a very specific one that was added in. We looked at it. I think, with respect, we're splitting hairs when we say the difference is whether it was implemented. It was to review that section of the Auditor General's report, which dealt with that very issue. We decided other committees were looking at that and it was not a priority for this committee. In fact my understanding is that the Deputy Minister of Transport appeared in front of the public accounts committee just recently to answer to his report.

Irrespective of that, this committee dealt with it in a very clear way. There's no ambiguity in my mind that it's exactly the same item.

The Chairman: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I was at the public accounts committee the other day, and exactly, precisely something like this came forward to our committee.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lou Sekora: You can laugh as much as you want, but that's a fact. I was there. You weren't there.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, I was.

Mr. Lou Sekora: You were there, yes, but he wasn't.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Anyway, regardless of who was there and who wasn't, that's precisely what they were discussing at great length.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order for the same reason as earlier. Could someone tell the honourable member that he cannot mention in this House whether some members are present or not?

The Chairman: You raise a point of order because he mentioned the name of a member who was not there?

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm going to say it again slowly so he can understand: you cannot mention whether or not some members are present in the House or at meetings of the committees which are a legal extension of the House. You cannot do that.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Michel Guimond: It's the second time in five minutes that he does it. Could you tell him not to, or ask the whip to do it?

The Chairman: Okay, understood. Thank you.

[English]

We ask that you not mention who is not present at committee meetings or in the House.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I didn't mention it. Mr. Bailey mentioned that he was there.

The Chairman: That's fine. Let's move on.

Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Chairman, if this is an extension of the House, do we have immunity in these proceedings as well?

The Chairman: If you have a point of order, I'll interrupt Mr. Sekora. Otherwise I won't.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Anyway, that's what was discussed. In fact here we had voted to study air transportation, I think. That was voted on. Why don't we get on with what was before us, rather than dilly-dallying along with something that somebody wants to throw in because they—

An hon. member: Because this committee voted to change its mind.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I'm sorry, but the fact is, if we vote on it, then that's the way it is.

• 1550

The Chairman: The reason I'm allowing a vote is that there's a change of a word from “review” to “implement”. So based on that, rather than having a two-hour discussion on it, I will put it to a vote.

Does anyone else wish to discuss item 2?

I call the question.

(Motion negatived—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Item 3 reads:

The failure of the Department to ensure the terms and conditions of a Federal contract were honoured, as outlined in the Auditor General's report, Chapter 25, Paragraph 25.49, which states that the Minister of Transport specified that toll funds must be dedicated to a particular project.

I don't remember that we voted on that. Do we all agree? Does anyone differ?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Wasn't this the same item?

The Chairman: Yes, but they're different paragraphs. Paragraph 25.48 is out. We voted on that. This would be paragraph 25.49 only.

Mr. Roy Cullen: We voted not to review the national highway—

The Chairman: No, it was to review the failure of the department to implement chapter 25, paragraph 25.48, which we just voted on. This new one is to review the failure of the department to ensure chapter 25, paragraph 25.49... That is the difference.

Are you ready for the vote?

(Motion negatived—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: I've not received, and I'm open to receiving, a request that we review the main estimates.

An hon. member: So moved.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: A point of order?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier, as you were concocting the agenda, that I wanted to comment on your preliminary remarks before we discuss the main estimates.

The Chairman: I said I would invite you to do so once we are finished reviewing the four items on the agenda. Let's discuss the fourth item and then, I'll invite you to comment.

Mr. Michel Guimond: First, can you tell me, Mr. Chairman, why you raise this issue. Has any member asked that we talk about the main estimates?

The Chairman: This is the fourth item which was put on our agenda.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Who proposed that?

The Chairman: The door is open, and such an item can be put on our agenda. What you just said cannot be considered as a point of order.

[English]

I'm not getting a request for main estimates, or am I?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I would like to move, Mr. Chairman, that we invite the minister. Some of the issues that have been brought forward here can be dealt with if the minister comes to deal with the estimates and a whole host of other things. I would like to also suggest that after that, we start our review of the air transportation system.

The Chairman: We'll deal with that separately.

Mr. Roy Cullen: We'll do it later? Okay.

The Chairman: I have a request that we invite the minister to appear before us in order that members may question him on the main estimates. Is there debate on that?

I call the question.

(Motion agreed to—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: I can tell you that I took the liberty of asking the minister if he was prepared to come on Tuesday when we return. Does that suit you? Is there any objection to that? Okay. We know the minister always makes himself available. So that will be on Tuesday, April 13, at 3.30. That is after the break.

I will go to Monsieur Guimond and then I will accept or deny any other business.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond, I invite you to raise the subject of my comments.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I take this opportunity to add yet another item?

The Chairman: Yes, afterwards.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Can I say what it is right now?

The Chairman: I would prefer you didn't, since I already asked Mr. Cullen to wait until you were finished.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay.

The Chairman: It's a matter of courtesy.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to embark on a long debate. Since the previous Parliament, members of this committee have always managed to get along. Some of my colleagues, who already sat on the committee in 1993, when I, too, became a member, including Mr. Cullen who was on the committee for a while, can attest to that. I left the committee for a year.

• 1555

I'd like to go over some of your comments, Mr. Chairman, since you opened the door. Clearly, you would prefer we didn't discuss it, but you shouldn't have brought up the subject yourself. You said that nobody asked you to have a meeting and that you were wondering why the four opposition parties held a press conference last week. I'd like to make it clear for all my colleagues here: it's because the Liberal majority passed a motion whereby this committee would only meet to consider a bill developed by the Department and tabled in the House.

I am speaking for myself, for my colleague, the member for Charlevoix, and for my party. We thought we had a rather elaborate work plan which included 16 items, consolidated under 15 headings, and that we had enough material to justify that we meet. This is why we voted against the Liberal majority's motion. We wanted to meet immediately. Maybe you didn't get a request for a meeting pursuant to the Standing Orders, such as the one you have in front of you, but I think you are intelligent enough, Mr. Chairman, and that you have enough experience as a parliamentarian to know that we wanted to meet. We wanted a meeting; you only have to remember that we wanted to start the study on air transportation and its impact on air control to know that it's true. I just wanted to add this to your comments, to what you also told me in private. I thought a correction was needed.

The Chairman: The only thing I can say is that it was difficult for me to uphold my position without saying who was present here or not. I was offended and I felt I was losing the committee's confidence when some people who were not here objected, after the opposition had lost a vote, even if it had been taken quite properly. What would you think if I called the media whenever members of this committee lose a vote? I have more important things to do elsewhere, I think. That's all.

I really appreciate serving on this committee, but if members don't have enough confidence in me to ask me directly to call a meeting to discuss some issues and review the main estimates, what am I to think? I would, at least, like to have a chance to refuse to hold a meeting before being forced to have one. When members of the committee proceed that way, the chairman has to answer questions from the media and his comments are subject to interpretation, which makes it difficult to correct whatever impression that might leave. When some members of the committee lose a vote, they don't want their failure to be picked up. A chairman who has the committee's confidence—a confidence I don't think I have—should be asked, as a matter of courtesy, at least verbally or by telephone, before being forced to hold a meeting, which damages its reputation. That's all I said.

[English]

Mr. Morrison, Ms. Desjarlais, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Actually, Ray, putting in a request to have certain things appear on the agenda using Standing Order 106 is quite common, quite in order. It's done all the time.

What I wanted to comment on, though, is this. You were wondering why the opposition was upset. Well, we have not stuck to an agenda for several months now. We set our course and decide we're going to study something, and then we change our minds. Then we decide we're going to study something else, and we change our minds. As a result, we do nothing. That is what set this off.

• 1600

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Much along the same line, Mr. Chair, during the course of the meeting, yes, the chair has the confidence, but I don't think there was any question that what took place was a decision to not allow any meetings. I don't think there was any question that the opposition accepted the fact that we didn't get our own way. We ended up hassling, meeting after meeting, over what we were going to discuss and ended up accepting a certain thing. But, let's face it, a decision was made by the majority of this committee not to discuss anything, absolutely anything, when we had 16 items.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I believe you did have the confidence. That's what took place: we would not discuss anything until we had an act before us. We had 16 items and we had people throughout the country who had areas of concern that we felt needed to be discussed and they felt needed to be discussed, and they were brushed under the rug. So it was a matter of frustration, of saying things needed to be dealt with and needed to be discussed.

Whether a certain number of members were here or not, the bottom line was that the majority on this committee voted to discuss nothing until we had something before us. We believe a number of issues need to be discussed.

The Chairman: I have to clarify some issues. I won't engage in the debate, but I will clarify as we go. What this committee decided was to study intelligent transportation systems.

A presentation was made, and members of this committee decided it wasn't an issue they wished to tackle, because they felt it was more provincial jurisdiction than federal jurisdiction. Another reason given was that the budget for all committees is broke, and has been broke for over a month. There's no money to travel, there's no money to do studies, and there won't be any until 1 April. That was another consideration.

As chair, I asked this committee for permission—that's the extent of democracy on this committee—to write a letter to the minister asking him to give us in writing the schedule of legislation forthcoming. We got the response, and I faxed it to you on the Friday of the same week, as I committed to do for you.

With all that information and the response saying the bill was coming this week, that is when the committee did not decide to do nothing. It was never mentioned to do nothing. The committee decided to defer the study until we get legislation, because the committee chose not to start the study and then postpone it to do the legislation.

If I'm not reflecting properly what actually happened in this committee, correct me. I'm open to that and I accept that, really. But I had to clarify that.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: The little press conference we had the other day was a reflection of our frustration on this side of the table. At times we seem to have cooperation, understanding, and agreement on important issues, and then all of a sudden, at the very last minute, something pops up somewhere and we change direction very quickly, when we've all agreed and we appear to have an understanding.

Just on one issue, the Auditor General came out with a blistering report on the Department of Transport, and we voted to not look at it. What are we here for if we're not here to look at things like that and review his issues?

The Chairman: We're discussing now my comments.

Mr. Bill Casey: Well, those are my comments.

The Chairman: Thank you. Anyone else?

On new items of business, Mr. Cullen and then Monsieur Guimond.

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

I'd like to come back to Mr. Guimond's comments, because this committee has been a very productive committee. We did a study in the last Parliament on a national highway system, and it was very well received. In the last session we did a study of passenger rail. We should try to get back to that esprit, where we're working together.

But frankly—and I'll speak for myself—I'm not prepared to take on single issues that happen to reflect a concern of a certain member of the committee. I have problems in my riding. I have an airport where there's a lot of noise. We could have a field day here on that. But the issues this committee should be tackling are much broader than that. So I know I for one won't be part of a committee that gets hijacked by a single issue.

We have a project on air transportation. We have done nothing on air transportation. No matter what the committee says, we tried, with the official opposition and others who had various agenda items on air transport, to incorporate them into the terms of reference. No, it wasn't exactly what you wanted, maybe, but we tried to reach some compromise. We felt on this side that a delay was in order.

• 1605

I would like to move, Mr. Chairman, that we get on with the estimates. We've agreed to that. As for the legislation, there may be a pause; I'm not sure. But if there is a pause, why don't we get back to this air transportation study, calling in first maybe the department for briefing and then maybe the Air Transport Association of Canada, and start to be more informed?

As the legislation comes, we could deal with that, and then get on in a measured way with this air transportation study, which would accomplish a lot for the members opposite and on this side as well. We could do a very good report. But we have to stop sniping at each other and get down to some productive work.

This committee has, as I say, produced some pretty constructive reports, and we should get on with the business of government.

The Chairman: On that issue, I'll open debate and we will call the question. The question will be, do you wish to resume the study that hasn't been started yet? That would mean authorizing the chair and the support staff to start planning the work for you.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I believe a motion was made. He used the word “motion”.

The Chairman: That's right, and I did say I would put it to a vote.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh.

The Chairman: I'm accepting that.

Is there debate on resuming the study of air transportation, as chosen previously?

Mr. Guimond, on that issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I am a bit puzzled by Mr. Cullen's comments regarding the motion which was passed and which led to the press conference by the four opposition parties. What was contemplated was that this committee would not meet as long as the House was studying the bill. We were to meet to review it clause by clause.

I think that the—

The Chairman: Just a minute. Just a minute.

Mr. Michel Guimond: May I finish, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No, because—

Mr. Michel Guimond: Why can't I finish, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Because your out of order.

Mr. Michel Guimond: This is not the case, Mr. Chairman. I am—

The Chairman: And I say that you are out of order.

Mr. Michel Guimond: We are in the middle of a discussion. You direct these proceedings in a dictatorial way, Mr. Chairman. You are going to have problems till the end of this Parliament—

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: —if you stay in the chair, I warn you.

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, it's going to be difficult for you to manage this committee. We are going to raise hell.

[English]

The Chairman: Threats will not change the way I run meetings.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond, you didn't even give me a chance to explain why. It's because he—

Mr. Michel Guimond: You interrupted me; I hadn't finished my sentence.

The Chairman: It's because you were out of order. If I ruled this way, it's because Mr. Cullen is asking the committee to change its mind and to resume the study. It's not complicated.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, I have—

The Chairman: You were talking about the reason why you called a press conference. I'm not interested to hear your comments about that at the moment.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine, I had no problem whatsoever understanding the comments—

The Chairman: If you want to speak to Mr. Cullen's motion, the floor is yours.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I am going to vote for Mr. Cullen's motion, even if I think that it's in contradiction with another motion which was passed. That was the problem, we were not going to meet as long as the House was considering a bill presented by the Department. However, I'm going to vote in favour of this motion. I think it's an excellent proposal. I should hope, however, that Mr. Cullen realizes that it's in contradiction with another motion he supported not later than ten days ago.

The Chairman: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you. When he says that we should resume the study on air transport, does that include a review of the impact of NAV Canada fees in the North?

The Chairman: Regarding the study on air transportation, the committee agreed that it would be possible to add some issues to this review. So, the door is open to studying everything which concerns the subject. All members of this committee have a description of the initial study. The committee agreed to add to it any issue concerning air transport and competition. The door is open, but not at this time.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'm just coming back from Nunavik, and there is a problem looming regarding food supply and NAV Canada fees. What's looming ahead is pretty serious. Would it be possible to deal with this issue?

The Chairman: It will not be part of the study initially, but it could be included at the end. The study is much broader than that and does not concern a specific region.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Are we talking about all of Canada's northern regions?

The Chairman: I know what you mean, but it's not part of the study at this point. The door is open to members of the committee who would like to deal with this issue during the second phase of the study.

• 1610

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Okay.

[English]

Mr. Bailey, did you want to speak on this issue? I was saving you, because I thought it was something different.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): This is more of a point of order.

The Chairman: Go ahead. The floor is yours.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have been one who does not enter into too much quarrelling with chairmen or anyone else. That's not my nature. But, Mr. Chairman, I came into the meeting today for a specific purpose, and that was to lend some support to my colleague. After 26 years in one type of government or another—local, provincial, regional, and federal—I was sharing with my colleagues a story and a laugh when one of the members opposite repeated language that was directed to me, saying I had said something I didn't say. I felt very taken aback by that, Mr. Chairman.

I sit on about four committees. I'm here sometimes. I've never in my life had someone from over there say I should shut up. I think Roy Cullen mentioned we should quit our sniping, and that is true. I agree with that. But I felt very hurt by that today, Mr. Chairman. I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming you whatsoever. But the remarks coming from opposite were totally uncalled for, totally incorrect, and totally unprofessional.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey, I will put on record that you have been one of the best members of this committee since I've been chair. That is on record.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In light of the kind of conversation that's going on and all of the events of the past, I think we all are intelligent enough to realize, as parliamentarians, that we have no complete control over everybody or anybody who works on this Hill in support staff or whatever other facet of the whole process.

Because of that, since we do not have control, we can make motions, as we have in the past, hoping that whatever those motions contain will become a reality within an expected period of time. Sometimes that does not happen, but I think we're all intelligent enough to realize that because it does not happen, we have to make a decision, and the decision is to go ahead.

So in light of the comments I have made and in light of the fact that we have a motion already, I think we can go full speed ahead and deal with the situation in the most intelligent manner, whatever the situation demands of us in the months ahead.

I support the motion. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, Monsieur Guimond, and Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I have a question for Mr. Cullen arising out of the honourable member's reference to the Nav Can fees.

Will your study at some point incorporate a day or two, or some time, to call some witnesses and deal with that particular problem? Is that envisaged in your plan? Do you have that in mind? I know it isn't in writing, but is this what you have in mind?

The Chairman: Before Mr. Cullen responds, I will clarify. It's not Mr. Cullen's study; it's our study, yours as much as anyone else's.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well...

The Chairman: It was recommended in phase two by our researcher, in his description of the study we may undertake. When we complete phase one, you will select the issues you wish to undertake in phase two. The answer to you is yes.

Mr. Lee Morrison: All right.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try to make a good comment so that you can designate me as employee of the month, just like they do at McDonald's, which is what you did for Mr. Bailey. You put your sword on his shoulder and dubbed him one of the best members of this committee. So, I'm going to try to make a good comment because I hope, next month, to be designated member of the month by the Standing Committee on Transport, just like they do at McDonald's.

The Chairman: I don't have to dub him; he is one of the best.

• 1615

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine, Mr. Chairman. I recognize your subtility and your proverbial sense of humour.

Having said that, I'd like to answer my colleague, the member for Abitibi. In the excellent work plan prepared by our excellent researcher, it is proposed, regarding the domestic or North- American market, that during Phase 1, that is during the winter and spring of 1999, we study services in the North and in isolated regions, as well as the level of competition in this market.

If the committee agrees to follow this work plan, in general, it might be very relevant to include the issue you raised earlier.

I have a question for Mr. Cullen. Would he agree to change the motion he is going to table in a minute to include something to the effect that we adopt the work plan prepared by our researcher? If the committee decides to resume the study on air transport and all other related issues, such as NAV Canada, the work plan presented by our researcher on February 11, 1999 would be implemented immediately. That way, we would have a rather exhaustive work plan. This document is very detailed, and I believe it would be a good starting point.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to briefly comment on what Mr. Guimond just said.

You will remember that the last time this issue was raised, we had been told that the bills were about to be referred to us. Right now, however, we know that the process might be delayed a little. I propose in my motion that, when we are finished reviewing the estimates with the minister, we start this study.

[English]

I'm not sure I understood exactly your motion. The motion I have is that we start with the study as soon as the minister has finished and until we have legislation before us, but that we start the process.

I have a brief comment to Mr. Morrison.

You're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. This is not my project; it's the committee's project. In phase two we have a description of some of the terms of reference with respect to Nav Canada, and I expect that in the normal course of affairs, that would involve calling witnesses. So my impression is that that is contemplated in the terms of reference.

The Chairman: Therefore the motion is that we resume the study we had agreed to. There has been no amendment to the motion. What that means is that we invite the department, we start inviting airlines, and while we do this, we continue to meet to implement the recommendation of our researcher in the way this committee chooses to do so.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond, as chairman, I would prefer not to entertain a motion proposing that we implement everything. It would deprive members of this committee of the possibility to innovate. However, if those are the committee's wishes—

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I understand, but we could include something to the same effect as the little phrase which can be found on a lot of job descriptions in North America, the last line, at the end of the page: "and any other related task". We could add at the end: "and any other issue the committee decides to deal with". It's just to have a kind of road map to know where we are going.

There is one issue which, to me, is critical. You might have to tackle it at the level of the Liaison Committee, so that we are able to travel and hear witnesses. We would need to try and arrange the pairing-off in the House. It would be useful not to hear only from those large organizations which have the means to finance lobbies and come here, to Ottawa, to present briefs. We have to sound the regions out. This is why I wanted to refer to the program which has been prepared by the committee's researcher, Mr. Christopher, because it includes this element, among others. Starting April 1st, or as soon as the Liaison Committee meets, you are going to be able to start lobbying for funds, since we know that, in this regard, each committee is a little bit like a vulture flying above its prey; well, may be it's going a bit far, but you know what I mean.

• 1620

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready for the question on the motion to resume?

Mr. Cullen.

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

I agree totally that at some point, budgets permitting and if we can get something through, we should go out and talk to people, visit, and get consultation to start the process. My motion indicated that we start with the department and then ATAC to give us a background and a briefing, and then proceed from there.

The Chairman: Well, if this motion passes, I can assure you that I'll start to give directives to invite ATAC, the department, and other people with general information to get us into the study, definitely.

I call the question.

(Motion agreed to—see Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, you have a question?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the parliamentary secretary to tell me whether it's true—I heard a rumour to that effect—that on Thursday of this week, the bill on motor vehicles is going to be tabled. Is it true that this bill is going to be tabled on Thursday in the House? I am going to give you enough time to—

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The Zamboni.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The Zamboni.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, he's providing me with a few seconds to answer in response to him, and I will grab those few seconds and simply say yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Since it's a bill which might affect all regions of Canada, the committee will have to decide on an action plan to follow. This is why I didn't want—

The Chairman: Are you suggesting that we postpone the study on air transportation?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Not at all, but we will have to hear all the stakeholders. Some of them have already approached us and told us that they have concerns they want to discuss. This is why I didn't make this comment earlier.

The Chairman: As chairman of the committee, I will be faced with a dilemma. You have asked me to organize a review of the main estimates, to launch the study we mentioned earlier and to follow up on the bills. I can assure you that the bills will have priority over everything else, besides the estimates. They have to be ready by a certain date. So the order is clear: the bills, the estimates and the study. These will be the priorities.

[English]

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Regarding the bill that's going to be coming in for first reading in the House on Thursday, we have no guarantee that it will flow through smoothly, because there have to be debating periods, and we're not too sure whether we can get the blocks of time in the House from Mr. Boudria when we want them. As a result, because there might be the odd day here and there that we will have nothing to do, we have a project already in front of us—we have two of them in fact—that can fill in the gaps.

Mr. Chairman, because this is the conclusion of the meeting, I would like to make a few comments, and I'll be very brief. I think we all understand the process. We are political animals. And yet we are very serious. I like the comments Michel made about the years of contributing towards common goals and common concerns and coming out with outcomes that will affect all people in this whole country, from coast to coast.

What I want to say is very important. We create a great number of problems, people on this side of the House and people on that side of the House. We sometimes will take you or the committee along a certain path and create problems for all the people in the front—in other words, the researcher, the clerk, and the chairman. But I'm really concentrating on the chairman.

• 1625

No matter what we do, you, Mr. Chairman, have to handle the outcome, and sometimes we don't do such a good job of providing the ammunition, the information, the direction, and so forth. Therefore you have to fill in the gaps; you have to decide.

What I want to say is, in light of the comments I've made and the role the chairman has played, especially today, I would like to make a motion of confidence in the chairman—in his ability, in his leadership, and in the guidance he has provided this committee over the lengthy period of time up to today. I so move.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

An hon. member: I'll second.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak to that motion.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I accept the motion, and that forces me to leave the chair and ask the vice-chair to take over.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Do we have a seconder for the motion?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Now debate.

Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chairman, as you know, I grew up in South America, and we had a practice there: if you wanted a person to be a good speaker, when they were born, you'd kiss them on the mouth; if you wanted them to be a good runner, you'd kiss them on the feet. I'm not sure where our chair was kissed, but he's chairman here today.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Your mind leads you right there.

Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis: You know, we used to take apples to our teachers to get on their good side. So to our new chairman, I have an apple for him.

Nevertheless, I'm pleased that this climate of cooperation is once again coming over this wonderful committee that I've enjoyed, and yes, let's move forward.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

Shall we vote on the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could you read the motion again? Unfortunately, I was a bad boy.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Dromisky, could you read the motion again, please?

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'll condense it. It really is a vote of full confidence in the leadership and guidance that have been provided by our chairman. It's a vote of confidence.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Can we comment?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to support this motion. I don't understand why the chairman would react the way he did. I think he is taking it too personally. We just wanted to alert public opinion. It is our right as parliamentarians. We wanted people to know that things were not going the way we wanted. Apparently, we met our objective. With the bill on motor vehicles, the estimates and the study on air transportation, the committee is going to have quite a bit of work. I am convinced that we are going to meet five or six times a week. So I'm going to support this motion which I find very nice, very cute and very friendly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you. We can now go ahead instead of backwards. I call the question.

[English]

(Motion agreed to—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): It's unanimous.

The Chairman: We have another issue that I need your support on: the budget. I need a motion to request that we apply for a budget in the amount of $24,000. Oh, wait. The initial motion I was looking for was $24,000. We are increasing it to $60,000, because if you decide to travel, we will have the funds. Otherwise we can't do it until June. So do I have a motion to request that budget? Ms. Desjarlais, seconded by Mr. Sekora.

• 1630

Do we request $60,000 or $84,000?

The Clerk: $84,000.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Let me think about it.

An hon. member: Sold to the man for $84,000.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: You know the way I operate as chair. We're not going to waste any money.

Are you ready for the question?

(Motion agreed to—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Is there anything else, for the good of the club?

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.