TRAN Committee Meeting

    We're back on again and in open session.

    Mr. Liepert.

    Actually, one item is yours and one is mine.

    Okay.

     Let's deal first with the letter that references the work we did the other day on the national trade corridors fund.

    We have a letter here addressed to the minister outlining what we heard on the national trade corridor presentation. Is everyone comfortable with the letter?

    Mr. Liepert.

    I'd like to make a wording change in the second-last paragraph on the back page. It's quite cumbersome and I'd suggest we break it down into two sentences.

    The first sentence would read, “Some witnesses also expressed concerns about Bill C-69, particularly about possible delays associated with the proposed environmental permitting process for major projects.” Then the second line would read, “Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”....

    It just reads more easily.

    Yes.

    You have to leave “Bill C-69” after “about”.

    I'm good with that.

    You're okay with that.

    Are there any further comments?

    Can you give me 30 seconds?

     Yes. Take your time.

    I am looking for something I saw yesterday, but I can't find it.

    In the interim, could I also ask that this be cc'd to both the environment minister and the infrastructure minister? I don't know if that's a separate thing you have to consider.

    Copying it to the environment minister and the infrastructure minister makes sense.

    Mr. Aubin.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have found my question. In the second paragraph of the letter, it says: “Les témoins avaient tous des commentaires élogieux pour le FNCC”. I acknowledge that there was a broad consensus, but the word: “tous” means what it means. I did not hear the witness from the Western Canadian Short Line Railway Association make comments as effusive as the letter gives us to understand.

    “Unanimously” would convey....

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    The Chair: You want to change the words “unanimously positive” to what?

    In French, it is more than positive, it is “effusive”. We could write “des commentaires favorables”.

    Then it's the majority of witnesses.

    No, it was unanimous. I didn't hear any negative.

    I never heard effusive comments from the witnesses from the railway companies.

    It's a translation issue, probably, in terms of the difference. Is there another word for “unanimously” that...?

    What about “overwhelmingly” or something along that line, which doesn't mean that every—

    What if it were to read “overwhelmingly positive”?

    We could also replace the beginning of the sentence with “Plusieurs témoins ont eu des commentaires élogieux”. The use of the word “tous” is an exaggeration. I feel like a car salesman.

    “The majority of witnesses”...?

    Let's just go with “the majority of witnesses”. Let's just do it that way.

    Mr. Aubin, is there anything else?

    No.

    Does anybody else have any other comments on this particular letter?

    We have a change in the second paragraph and a change in the fifth paragraph for Mr. Liepert.

    Let's just make sure that everybody is happy with this now.

    We will fix it and I will send it out. We will send a copy to the environment minister and infrastructure minister as well on it, and a copy to all of the members.

    Is everyone in favour of it as amended?

    Okay, it's carried.

    Mr. Liepert.

    I just want to raise one issue. It follows up on the testimony we had from the department of—and I'm probably going to get this wrong—Indigenous Services, with Ms. Ferland. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but in part of the exchange, Ms. Ferland referred to the interactive map. Our member, Mr. Doherty, asked if this was information she might be able to provide to the committee in a more concise document, and her response was, “Absolutely.”

    Unfortunately, what we got from the department was a map. I think the department needs to provide something more, based on Ms. Ferland's commitment to this committee.

    There was a second item I was going to raise.

    There were several requests for information.

    Yes, there was a second request.

    Mr. Doherty asked Ms. Ferland if she could table a national ranking framework with the committee. Her response was, “I don't know if I can provide it by Thursday.” Mr. Doherty then asked if it would be possible at a later date, and she replied, “I will look into it, yes.”

    This is the one I meant. It's on the gas tax fund. This is Mr. Doherty again:

    The response was, “Yes, we can.”

    Again, we got a response that basically referred us to the website and another map.

    I would like to request that the committee ask Ms. Ferland to be more comprehensive in fulfilling her commitments before this committee.

     There were five different requests for information from the Indigenous Services folks who were before us. The only one they have submitted so far is the map. Yes, we will follow up with the folks from Indigenous Services and ask that this be done, like, yesterday, because that was two weeks ago already. We'd like to have it before the House rises so that the members have that information.

    Considering we likely have only one remaining meeting, we do need it well before the House rises.

    Exactly. Is everyone okay with that? All right.

    Is there anything else?

    Just to clarify, would the committee be okay with my sending an email, or would you like an official letter from the chair? How are we responding?

    Can I suggest we do both?

    Sure.

    For the map, they did provide only the link to the website. Is there a specific format you'd like, for example, a PDF copy of the map, and then...?

    As I recall the discussion, Ms. Ferland suggested we go to the website. That wasn't her exact wording.

    Yes.

    Our member asked for a concise document. A link to a website, to me, is not a concise document. I think that happened on two or three different occasions.

     We'll be quite specific in the letter.

    Thank you.

    Is there any further discussion?

    Our next meeting is scheduled for June 20, with both of our ministers who have been invited, Minister Champagne and Ms. Jordan.

    That's it. It's been a long time, but we've had a good time. If I don't get a chance to say it, thank you all for your great co-operation. It's been fun.

    The meeting is adjourned.