:
If it's a serious problem, I'm not going to absolutely stand on my right to be the next speaker, but as I said, this is going to be my last intervention on this debate.
The honourable member has brought forward three motions. I guess it is actually fortuitous that he will be speaking later on. There is something I fundamentally do not understand about his motions, including the one we're debating now:
That the Committee immediately produce an interim report to the House related to its study of the March 31, 2011 deadline for infrastructure stimulus projects and that the report read as follows:
The Committee recommends that the Government move immediately to extend the stimulus deadline by 6 months for all projects across Canada.
What I don't understand is that the honourable member moved another motion on the same day at the same time and that reads:
That the Committee hold a meeting on December 8, 2011, from 3:30-5:30 pm on the topic of the March 31, 2011 deadline for infrastructure stimulus projects and that municipal officials be invited to testify.
To my mind, there is a bit of a contradiction there in the motions. As I said, I'll ask the honourable member to explain this later on and to expand on why he has moved the two separate motions. Because it seems to make some sense to me that if we're going to do a report, with a conclusion, we should listen to all of the witnesses and all of the testimony that has been given before.
Now, it is very possible that we've heard all the witnesses and testimony that we need to hear on this. I'm of the view that we really don't need this December 8 meeting as well. But if he is moving for a December 8 meeting--and by my time, today is December 2--why would we do the report ahead of time? Why would we not wait until after the December 8 meeting?
My suggestion to the honourable member would be--because I do think he is serious about all of the motions he is moving here--that he amend or take off the table this motion we're currently debating and set it back, for after December 8. That would seem to make more sense to me, because it's very possible that if the motion for the December 8 meeting goes ahead and we actually have witnesses at the December 8 meeting, we'll get some information that will cause us to change our minds on his motion. It's possible that the witnesses may say something that may cause us to want to extend the deadline by three months, or we may not want to extend it at all.
I think it's unfair to call witnesses for a meeting and unfair to ask them to testify when we've already written our report. I realize this is a small report, and there could be other things one could add to that, but let's be realistic here: if you're going to have a report, you need to have all the witnesses listened to.
I'm actually going to ask the honourable member, when he does this, to table his motion. Then we could resume debating it after the December 8 meeting, assuming that one goes ahead, or at least after we see the results of the motion on December 8. How many more meetings there will be is a good question.
But I am not prepared to even consider any sort of report, let alone this report, until we know for sure that we've had all the meetings we're going to have and that there is no possibility whatsoever that we will see more witnesses. For me, it's a matter of simple fairness to the witnesses, and it's a matter of just basic common sense: you listen to all the witnesses before you have a report.
I hope the honourable member takes my suggestions into account. I hope he tables this one until after we've dealt with the other one, because while I think there are good points to be debated in all of his motions, perhaps he has the order of them mixed around. Perhaps he should reconsider the order of his motions and deal with them in a way that makes more logical common sense.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My intervention won't be very long.
When we were listening to witnesses, we had, first of all, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. We also had the union of Quebec municipalities. I don't have it written in my notes, but I remember that one of them, although I would have to check the blues on this, specifically made the statement--perhaps it was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and someone can correct me—that for some projects, it wouldn't matter what the length of the extension was, because they would never get them completed.
I have some concern that perhaps we've never heard from any of those projects and that there might be individuals and municipalities who would have a vested interest in seeing a longer extension on this. Perhaps we're shortchanging them if we don't listen to that group of people as well.
I don't know if the Federation of Canadian Municipalities could forward us some of those names or if they came from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, but they specifically told us that there were some projects where it didn't matter what the extension time was. I think we need to hear from those people to hear about what problems they are facing, what the barriers are to getting this done, what kind of timeline they are looking for in order to get this accomplished, and if they would be willing to come and be a witness before this committee.
Quite frankly, I'm of the mind that we should get on to some other business. I have a few things to say, but after that I think we need to deal with these motions and then get on with Bill . We have a lot of people here.
I do want to talk a bit about infrastructure investments and what we've done as a government. Certainly, since introducing our economic plan in January of 2009, we've invested approximately $10.7 billion in federal funds toward more than 6,100 projects. It's no small feat. If we look at the history of Canada, this is the first time this amount of action has ever been taken in relation to infrastructure stimulus revitalization.
I'm very pleased with that and I'm pleased with the fact that we've worked well with our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners. We've done a great job and they've done a great job in implementing the infrastructure rollout. For sure, $30 billion has been invested; in fact, over $30 billion has been invested by all of us. Our partners have even applauded us for the work we have done. They have indicated to us that this has been very important.
There are other things we've done. One, obviously, is making the gas tax permanent and doubling the amount. There are a lot of other things we've done with our partners, basically in listening to the FCM and others and building a truly national partnership with the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities.
When the Auditor General came out with her report, I was very, very pleased that she said the economic action plan is being delivered effectively. Her report actually says that the Government of Canada reacted quickly and effectively to design and implement the plan and fund eligible projects.
As of the end of September, provinces, territories, and municipalities reported that work was completed on about five times as many projects--that's right, Mr. Chair--under the infrastructure stimulus fund as they reported in March, so quite a bit has happened even since then.
We were also pleased to see that more than 61% of the projects are being constructed at least 30 days faster than originally forecasted. In fact, if we look at it even more deeply, 99% of the reported infrastructure stimulus fund and communities component top-up projects are now under way or completed. As we know, these projects put people to work when the economy needed it most and we are a shining example in the world of what a country can do when it comes together with its partners--provincial, territorial, and municipal.
But it's important to note that as the economic action plan winds down, a plan that was always intended to be targeted, timely, and temporary, and as projects complete construction, the Government of Canada has made a long-term commitment to continue to work with the provinces, territories, and municipalities--especially as can be seen, as I said, by the gas tax funding and what we've done there—to build world-class public infrastructure for the quality of life of Canadians and to make sure their quality of life continues to be so great.
The $33-billion Building Canada plan complements that economic action plan, and I think all of us can see what we've done with our partners in that area. Where the economic action plan targeted the shovel-ready projects that could kick-start the economy, the Building Canada plan focuses on the longer-term projects that require more time to plan and build. This means that funding for these projects under the programs like the Building Canada fund will continue to flow past next March. Of course, Mr. McCallum's motion that is before us today deals with the economic action plan.
As well, this government increased the gas tax fund to $2 billion a year and made it permanent, as I said, and that has been applauded by all the municipal group and by municipalities and provinces. Municipalities can rely on this funding and use it when they need it, whether that's as they receive it or at some time in the future. Of course, the Conservative government would not take that away, and hopefully no subsequent government would either.
Mr. Chair, I do have a press release that I would like to circulate among the members, but I would like to read out some parts of that. As was said this morning by the : “Canada's economic action plan is working. Our government expects that 90% of infrastructure projects will be done by the ambitious deadline that we set out”.
Certainly, most groups, engineers, and economists have applauded us, because that was a short timeline in order to make sure we spurred the economy. Now, since July 2009, more than 420,000 net new jobs have been created across Canada, and about 23,000 projects are under way or completed. The government has provided $16 billion to modernize public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water, parks, transit, and recreational facilities.
I'm reading verbatim from the press release: “Today, we have extended the deadline for completion of economic action plan infrastructure projects by one full construction season, to October 31, 2011”. Of course, that was said by the Prime Minister just a few minutes ago. “This will allow sufficient time for completion of the remaining projects,” he said.
I would like to circulate this in both French and English, if I may.
Now, I would say bluntly that Mr. McCallum's motion,at this stage, is moot, I would suggest. The difficulty with it, of course, is that it's not accurate on what we have actually done this morning.
You've asked for a six-month extension. We've actually made it a seven-month extension. I don't know where else we could do a better job than what was proposed by your motion, but certainly I would suggest that we have done that. That has now been done, so as far as that motion goes, I would suggest that it's moot.
I kind of agree with Mr. Guimond about the behaviour on the government side, but I won't focus on that.
It's rare that the government does almost precisely what the opposition tells them to do. It will be entertaining to reread the arguments of the Conservative members from the last meeting or two as to why this was such a terrible idea.
But it's not costless, the fact that they delayed, because we proposed this--which is precisely what they've done, apart from one month--in mid-September, so as a consequence of delaying it until now, which is more than a month and a half, municipalities have had to spend unnecessarily on overtime because they were rushing to this arbitrary deadline. They were working around the clock in some cases. Because of this deadline, they had to bid for materials, pushing up prices.
The government has totally flip-flopped and has totally come around to our position. I guess I could say better late than never, but as a consequence of that delay, they have imposed unnecessary costs on municipalities and created unnecessary uncertainty for a longer period of time.
That's it.
I think Mr. Dhaliwal wants to speak.
I do just want to say, Mr. Chair, that if you look at the record in the House of Commons, you'll note that I was speaking on oil tankers at 10:50 this morning, which actually went over to past 11. It was not my intention to do so to strictly avoid the meeting, but I will advise and I do want to let Mr. know that, first of all, I did extend an olive branch on the basis of what I understood at the time, which was, in essence, to delay this particular motion as to what was happening. But to be blunt, I'm not a minister, and I'm not privy to all the information. I just receive instructions, and for the most part I follow through with those instructions as to what I'm supposed to do.
But I will tell you one thing that I have done in my six years here--that is, never filibustered. I am not somebody who believes I should take up all of your time by sitting here and giving a 40-minute or two-hour speech if indeed it can be dealt with in some other way. Because I value your time too much, the same as I value all the members of this committee. We have a lot of things that we can do and a lot more important things than listen to somebody filibuster, which I don't like. Bluntly, I disdain it.
So from that perspective, Mr. , I understand that you have to take a position, the same as when I extended an olive branch and you refused it because you did not believe that was in the best interests of the people you represent or your party. It's the same as what I have to do because it's not in the best interests of the people I represent or my party, and I have to do that basically because I'm ordered to do it, but indeed, I would do it anyway, because I think it's best for the country. In this particular case, what was done was done, and I can't go back on that, but I can tell you that I did it out of respect for all the members here, because of their time. I really did that. Notwithstanding that, you have to do what's best for your party and the people that you represent, just like I have to do the best for the people I represent, and I will continue to do that.
I hope it doesn't sour relations between all of us. Bluntly, I think what has happened is that it was a motion of politics, not a motion of sustainability. The Bloc obviously asked a lot of questions over a long period of time in relation to this deadline. The Prime Minister has listened and the cabinet has listened, and we have not just extended it six months: we have extended it seven months.
I think that speaks to the volume and to the quality of this Prime Minister wanting to get things done in the best interests of Canadians. Whether that deals with a good relationship or a bad relationship is not really my issue, but I do hope that we can continue working together.
I didn't really want to speak on the motion, but since we've seen now the action of the government, I think it's incumbent on us to consider what that action has meant to the municipalities. The failure to move forward with this extension has probably led many municipalities into a situation where they're in winter works now, where they're going to be spending more money than they would normally have had to in order to accomplish the work.
If we'd had some indication of this a little earlier.... I think that's the problem that has been created with this delay in this announcement, which I was confident that at some point in time we would see, because at some point in time this government would have to act logically. I'm glad to see that it's finally caught up to that. But that still doesn't mean the municipalities have not suffered through this process. I think that's the case.
Mr. Chair, I first spoke about this issue in February 2009 in the House of Commons, when I questioned Minister on the deadline. The issue has been around since they put the program in place. I think this government's reaction has been very slow. It has been very difficult. I have to commend this committee for the work it has done, because it has recognized the importance of this and has helped to put the pressure on the government to make this change.
The information is being circulated on the second motion that I just read. It will remain on the table for future discussions after the information has been digested by all parties.
Now I will invite our guests to join us at the table, please.
While you're moving to your chairs, I'm just going to introduce you.
Obviously they're here to give us some advice and input if there are questions from the committee. Joining us from the strategic policy branch, we have assistant deputy minister Kristina Namiesniowski, and Caroline Fobes, executive director and senior counsel. Also, from the Department of Transport, we have Isabelle Desmartis, director of security policy.
Welcome.
If everybody has the bill in front of them, we will move to clause-by-clause. We will postpone clause 1, the short title, and move to clause 2, where we are sitting with several amendments.
(On clause 2)
The Chair: The first one is amendment NDP-1 on page 1 in your package.
I will open the floor to Mr. Bevington.
:
Yes, Mr. Chair. I actually listened to the same witnesses and had the same concerns that Monsieur did on this. The reality is that it's fine to have those concerns in Canada, but the difficulty is that the purpose of this bill is to amend it so that we can provide to the foreign state information of people who are actually flying or within that foreign state.
The difficulty is that the U.S. law is clear on the information elements required for the U.S. to allow foreign air carriers into their airspace. If we limit the data elements to a smaller list, as is proposed by Monsieur , the airlines would not be in compliance.
That's what I understand, anyway, and correct me if I'm wrong, please. The airlines would not be in compliance with the U.S. law that actually specifies what data elements are to be listed. Then, as a result, if this particular clause and amendment are carried as proposed by Monsieur , the likely result would be that these Canadian carriers would not be granted access to U.S. airspace.
Because if I'm clear on the research that I've received, the U.S. law data elements require: name; date of birth; gender; a redress number so that they can redress it; passport number; passport country of issuance; the expiration date on the passport; foreign airport code, so place or origin; port of first arrival; airline carrier code; flight number; date of departure; time of departure; date of arrival; scheduled time of arrival; reservation control number; record sequence number; record type; passenger update indicator; and travel reference number.
Is that list exhaustive or is there more? That is the list that is required by the U.S. legislation to allow air carriers in, am I correct?
:
Ms. Namiesniowski, it is worrisome, when you mention that any other information that the airline might have could be...
When we show our passport in a country that requires it upon landing, the airline company, before take-off, asks to see our passport in the airport of departure.
In my case, it is not so bad. I, Michel Guimond, was born in Chicoutimi, Quebec. However, if my name was Dhaliwal or if my name was Arab-sounding... If the act does not guard us against the racial profiling that the Americans might do, then they could say that they would do a double and a triple check of all Arab-sounding names. That is where the danger lies.
My amendment is based on the statement made before us by Minister Toews. I will read you a short six line paragraph, which is at the bottom of page 8 of the French version. Mr. Toews stated the following to us:
The final rule stipulates that airlines are required to provide each passenger's full name, date of birth and gender to the Transportation Security Administration before departure for all domestic and international flights landing in the U.S., as well as those that fly over U.S. air space.
When I drafted this amendment, I had the Minister's speech beside me. I added the flight number, because this whole thing has to, in some way, be linked to an airplane. I added: "must provide the flight number, the surname, first name, sex and date of birth".
Where is the problem? The Minister told us that the final rule of the Secure Flight Program...
You worry me when you say that we could provide any other information, not just information stating that the person had chicken rather than steak 15 times over the course of his or her 15 last flights. Let us stop being silly here; we do not have any time to waste.
That being said, my amendment is consistent with what the Minister told us.
:
Mr. Chair, I didn't really understand Mr. Guimond's argument in relation to the minister and I'd like to hear from him again after my intervention. It was going a bit fast and the translator.... I didn't really understand.
I want to mention as well, on the information I have, that I still haven't heard an answer to my question from some time ago, when I asked if we can put into our law only what is required by U.S. law so that no additional information is shared. That's the first question I have.
Second--and I was surprised here, because I was concerned with what Mr. Guimond said about racial profiling, etc.--I notice that nowhere do they ask for place of birth. Is that the case, or am I missing it?
A voice: It's in the passport.
Mr. Brian Jean: Oui, oui, but they don't ask for the passport either. They ask for passport number, name, birthdate, and gender, but according to the information I have, the U.S. doesn't see the passport until they come to the gate, and they don't ask for the place of birth beforehand. I'm just suggesting that since 75% of the 9/11 people came—
:
Mr. Chairman, I think you have to go back to the beginning about why this rule was put in place in the first place.
There was work done by the 9/11 commission. That commission came out with decisions that called for the repatriation of the no-fly lists from the hands of the air carriers into the hands of the U.S. government, because up until that point air carriers around the world were running the U.S. no-fly list, making a determination as to whether individuals who potentially would be boarding that aircraft would be on the list or not, and then trying to resolve the situation if there was potentially a match with the U.S. government. This led to various people missing planes, false positives, and that sort of thing, so there was a decision on the part of the U.S. government to accept the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and repatriate the no-fly list into the hands of the U.S. government.
They went through their process to develop the final rule. There was a notice of proposed rule-making that came out. It provided people with an opportunity to offer representation around the content of that rule. Canada did do that. We had various discussions with the U.S. government about seeking an exemption to the application of the rule. The decision at the end of the day was to provide an exemption for Canadian domestic flights, i.e., flights that fly within Canada but fly over U.S. airspace.
Further to 9/11, as individuals will recall, it was airplanes that flew into the World Trade Centre. The U.S. government was very concerned about that sort of activity happening again. The rule applies to the continental U.S. They worry about having planes that fly over major population centres, but domestic flights in southern Canada that go over the northern United States do not fly over major population centres. This is one of the reasons they gave us the exemption for Canadian domestic flights--