Transport Committee on May 11th, 2006

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

A point of clarification. I agree with the report and the content, and I know we looked at what might reasonably be done within the first period of time. I only wanted to make sure that committee members and I am satisfied that the issue I've spoken about, which is ports and airport competitiveness, is not lost in here, or whether ultimately it would be another issue. We talked about it in the main meeting and didn't talk about it in the others, and maybe it's my fault for not bringing it up. But it's likely something we'll get to further on. I simply don't want it to be lost as an item identified as a priority, because the competitive issue is very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And in the opening paragraph it says “not limited to”, and I would agree and think that that would imply competitiveness.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Would there be agreement that we identify that as a sixth item, the final one, or insert it in there when we're talking about the topics, so we're showing a sequence here? We're talking about the infrastructure as a priority, the creation of the committee, the safety issues, other bills, and then if we referred to competitiveness of our air and ports/marine....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments? Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My concern is actually about the safety issues. I'm not really interested in safety issues; I'm interested in safety solutions. I think it's one thing we have to deal with, obviously, but I'm interested in solutions. I don't want to listen to witnesses talk about issues and events that have happened. I want to be clear with the committee. I want to find people who know risk assessment. I want to know people who know how to solve safety issues, so that we can implement or make a report that actually recommends some implementation of solutions, not issues.

I only want to be clear on what my point is, because I think a lot of things go on from there. Maybe we will want to do this after we're done with a good portion of the safety issues. We could come back to the committee and at least get an idea of where we want to go next.

What's the committee's feeling on how long we're going to spend on the safety solutions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Any comments? Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It's a very good question that the parliamentary secretary poses. We're already forwarding lists of possible witnesses to the clerk, so I think we'd be looking at certainly a good two or three weeks on safety issues. Now, that would take us to some time into mid-June. We have Ports Canada, which Mr. Laframboise has raised, that we have said we would also deal with prior to the summer recess. With that and the bills, our feeling is that this would be a pretty full agenda until the summer recess.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I agree with Mr. Julian and Mr. Jean. However, as regards competitiveness, when we address the security issue, there will clearly be some competitiveness from the industry on this matter. In view of the time frames allowed us, let's focus on this issue. In any case, I'm convinced that the industry will raise the competitiveness issue, that it will present solutions and, of course, the costs that they will generate.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

We seem to identify in the mind, in talking about there being safety issues relating to the derailments, and to the marine disaster on the west coast, for example, and that risk, and to the issues of air safety, whether these included the flight attendants or whether they included other aspects of air travel security....

I just want to make sure, when we each start talking about issues such as airport rents and fees, or in the case of ports about the ability to make the ports more sustainable and competitive, and particularly about the issue of competition with the U.S. ports, that it's an issue we begin some work on. I don't expect we're going to.... These would be the higher priorities.

I guess on reflection and looking at this, I would have liked to see it mentioned—not with the intention to have it done, as Mr. Julian said before, by the summer recess, but so that it was simply acknowledged as a major topic; that was all.

That's why I would suggest it be a lower number somewhere, but listed as an item we've acknowledged, because somebody looking at this work plan, while we've said it's “not limited to”, is going to ask whether we are looking at competitiveness. We can say yes, but if it's there, the question doesn't have to be asked.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I don't know how the members feel about it, and maybe I'm being a little too specific, but I agree with Mr. Bell. I like having a focus and an agenda and dealing with the agenda, and I'd rather be more thorough than not enough, even if we don't have to say it's required that we deal with those issues.

I think competitiveness is an issue. I think security should be included in this. Maybe what the paragraph should read is—and I'm back to the safety issue comment—“Safety solutions on all modes of transportation--rail safety, marine safety, air safety, and road safety”, keeping in mind competitiveness and security and other issues that may be there, but also acknowledging that safety is the key focus of this agenda, notwithstanding that it may make them non-competitive. Obviously, we don't care, if they're not competitive, because safety is the number one key.

I don't want to be in a situation like my first bout of my last committee. Sometimes I would listen to witnesses, but with respect, they had no relevance to what we were trying to study. I would hate to see a situation where we get witnesses who may offer information on what happened on a boat that went down or a rail that went off, but really don't give us any idea how we can stop it from happening, so that we are talking about the issue rather than talking about the solution.

That would be my two cents' worth, to make it safety solutions, keeping in mind the issue of competitiveness and the issues of security and anything else the members think would be relevant to keep in mind on it, because it doesn't restrict us. But certainly the people reading this, the witnesses and experts who are coming forward, would be in a situation to say this is what they're going to gear their conversation toward—safety as the main theme—but keeping in mind these other issues.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Just so that we cover it and we know what the priority is and put it in the sequence, if we were to take item number 4 and say “Safety, security and competitiveness solutions on all modes of transportation--rail, marine, air, and road”, that would cover it. We would in effect have placed the priority on safety and security, and it rules the issues.

Let's just then deal with it as we bring it in, and if we find as we're getting into safety that there's a competitiveness issue that particularly comes up, rather than some general issue of U.S. ports, for example, we can deal with it in that context. Then it's there. People know we're going to address it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm satisfied with that. I'm satisfied with either one. Mr. Julian was the one who initiated the safety issue. I think he brought the committee back to a focus, and I would like to hear from him, if that's possible.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I am concerned, given that we have an ambitious agenda, about broadening the topics. We only have five weeks, really and these are pretty substantive topics already. I would be in favour of looking at that more in the fall, but I'm concerned, if we are dealing with the issues of rail safety and marine safety and air safety, that there are pretty extensive lists of experts and witnesses who would be coming. If we broaden this, I'm not sure we'll get our work done.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I tend to agree. I think, if I may say this, I would rather go back to what my amendment was and say safety is the key factor, keeping in mind these other issues. As a witness, if I were looking at the agenda of this committee and were coming to provide testimony, the first thing I would look at is the first report to see what people want me to look at.

I think safety issues are very broad, and there's no question safety is important. Keeping in mind the security aspect, which is very important, and keeping in mind the competitive nature of the business, which it has to maintain or else it's not going to be in business, but making sure that safety is the main focus of all of these, I think is an acceptable medium between the two issues. It gives a better focus to the witnesses, in my mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If we were to move to item 4 and have it read something like “Safety and security solutions on all modes--rail safety...including competitive security and other issues”, it basically moves it to the bottom. We're dealing with the safety and security solutions, as you said. I think Mr. Bell has acknowledged that he's not worried that it get onto the agenda in the spring, but that it not be forgotten in the agenda in the fall.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I agree with the change that was there. I'd like to see, then—whether we throw it in as what I'll call with the renumbering item 4(a) or as 5(a), because item 6 is really a procedural thing in terms of having the parliamentary secretary come there, or show it as an item farther down—that the issue of competitiveness be addressed at a future time. We can indicate the sequencing, so that Mr. Julian's point about indicating what we're trying to do up front.... I agree. I would just like to see this highlighted so that we haven't overlooked it; that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Stronach.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'll jump in and add my two cents.

First of all, I like the idea of solutions. Let's get on with solutions, as opposed to issues. And safety is the number one priority.

I would put competitiveness as a separate thing, because with the rise of China and the rise of India, we want to make sure we're capturing that trade and have the appropriate investments and resources and infrastructure in place to take advantage of it, so that we don't lose investment or our business elsewhere.

I think it's a significant enough piece that it needs to have its own line in there. We may not get to it, but we shouldn't lose it as an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Perhaps it could be an item 4(a), dealing with competitiveness.

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I believe Mr. Bell was proposing to add competitiveness by mentioning the word “subsequently”. If we want to add a paragraph stating that we'll address safety and security first and competitiveness subsequently, that's fine with me. I agree with the idea of adding competitiveness, but, in view of the time frames, I'm aware we'll have to focus on this issue.

I believe security is a good starting point. We could have added that this was our work plan from now until the end of the June, but it states that this is an interim work plan. I wouldn't have any objection to adding a paragraph on competitiveness, but stating that we'll deal with that later. I think that could be all right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is everyone in agreement? Do we need a motion?

We need a motion.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'd like “issues” to be replaced with “solutions”. I don't want to be dealing with issues all day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So the motion as amended will read “Safety and security solutions”, and there will be a separate line dedicated to competitiveness in the future.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

All modes of transportation could be addressed in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, it's been brought to my attention that when we....

Mr. Jean?