Transport Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Volpe's motion first. Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, let me begin with a bit of history on this for a moment.

It refers to the vehicle accident in Bathurst, New Brunswick, where the young boys from the basketball team died in a car accident, along with one of the accompanying adults. Yesterday this was the topic of an SO 31 in the House. I know we were all, as members of Parliament, moved by it and we all would have offered, given the opportunity, our condolences to the families and the school and the community for such a tragic event.

The motion you see before you was really designed to take a look at the regulatory guidelines that fall under the purview of Transport Canada. There are at least two other investigations on this right now. One is by the RCMP. I believe, Mr. Zed, one's by the province.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Yes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

As well as from some of the local authorities.

Notwithstanding that I gave this motion when I did, I'm now suggesting that maybe all of us would probably have a much more germane discussion of the motion once we see some of those reports. For colleagues around the table, you might find it strange, but I'm hoping that what we would do is maybe defer it until we have the substantive reports of the ongoing investigations before we deal with this with the seriousness it demands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I understand Mr. Volpe's position, but I would like us to perhaps meet with officials from Transport Canada in order to ask them some questions. I agree that we will probably have to wait for the results of the investigations, but it may still be relevant to ask questions about how Transport Canada licenses certain vehicles and the way in which the system functions. It is not clear in my mind. You were saying that we had an hour to fill up next Tuesday. Perhaps we could invite officials from Transport Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I was pleased to see the motion, and I am disappointed to hear the mover has some hesitation now because of these other studies. I think they're important as part of it. But when you look at this particular vehicle that was involved, it raises questions about Transport Canada's role outside those particular studies. In fact, the United States has actually had congressional hearings on this, and this vehicle is illegal in 40 states for purchase by school boards.

In Canada, Edmonton has different rules for it; Calgary has different rules for it; Nova Scotia has banned the vehicle. We have I guess almost a dog's breakfast, in terms of how this vehicle can be used. It's not just with regard to this particular tragedy. These vehicles in particular--I know this is not just limited to that vehicle, but this vehicle is a good example of some of the questions out there--are used for church groups when they go to different functions and are used for a whole variety of operations.

There's quite a lot of scientific evidence on this vehicle. On the questions I have to Transport Canada, I'm wondering about the act and how it relates. There doesn't seem to be any type of opportunity for them to engage in leadership on this issue and the use of vehicles like this. To me, I would think it would be worthwhile, especially if we have some open time, to maybe start to investigate this a little. I believe there is a real role.

Once again, if we're not going to do it.... Other municipalities are doing it and other provinces are doing it. I think there's a federal role. If it's not good in one community for particular use, or for example it can only have ten or fewer people in it, then why would that be different somewhere else? I think it would be helpful to set some overall guidelines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, I did have an opportunity to get some research done by the department. It wasn't in both official languages and I'm undertaking to get that done so we can circulate it to the committee. I will advise that I did give a copy to Mr. Volpe, because it was from the department and it dealt specifically with his motion.

I do want to say this. I think it's a good motion, but we should put it after we've heard these other investigations that are under way, especially because it's provincial jurisdiction, first of all. I want to make that very clear. We have the ability to do blanket studies, but the reality is Canadian legislation does not allow the imposition of a selective ban like that. Provinces and territories have the authority over road use.

Saying that, our understanding on a preliminary basis from Dr. Frank Wilson--and this is in the report--is that what happened in this particular case was the van went sideways, sliding on the road. If it had electronic stability control, which is going to be mandatory in a bit of time here in Canada, then the accident wouldn't have happened. In fact, it happened so quickly there wasn't even time to put on the brakes.

It wasn't a situation where the van flipped. It was a situation where there was just no time. It slid sideways and the truck hit it square-on and that's why it was such a mess. It would've happened to just about any vehicle.

Notwithstanding that, I would suggest that what we should do is put this off until such time as a provincial study's been done. I think the RCMP are doing an investigation. After that's been done, it would make more sense, I think, simply because it's not our jurisdiction in the first place. I will by that time have a copy of this in French so that I can circulate it to all the members so they can see the preliminary issues of the study. As I say, it's about five pages long, so it has some good information on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, just before I defer to Mr. Zed, because Mr. Volpe hasn't formally moved this, I think we'll continue the discussion a little. If we get to that point, then I would ask him either to move it or defer it.

Mr. Zed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Thanks, colleagues.

Look, it's an obvious major issue in our province, New Brunswick. My predisposition is to agree with Mr. Jean. At this time the province are obviously still in a bit of mourning. There are some major investigations under way. The premier himself has mandated a significant review. I think it would be more appropriate to allow the province to deal with this within its own jurisdiction at this time.

It's been such a national and public event. I think every jurisdiction provincially has witnessed it. Every municipality, school group, and church group is obviously looking at this. They don't need somebody in Ottawa telling them to go look at it.

Notwithstanding the fact that I agree with the substance of the motion, that's just my sensitivity, coming from New Brunswick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You may make a final comment, Mr. Jean.

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

One of the main issues in this case is that winter tires weren't used--that's my understanding. So if winter tires had been used, they would have added safety. I missed that and should have mentioned it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for allowing this kind of preliminary discussion on the motion. Some of my colleagues have made some really good points. I appreciate that everyone feels as I did when I prepared the motion.

I think Mr. Jean is indicating to us that we may be rushing to some conclusions prior to actually having studied the issue thoroughly enough. I don't want to fall prey to that myself.

As for Mr. Masse's case, I have found myself in the same position as the driver of that van. I used to coach basketball teams. Teenage boys are a tough crowd to handle at the best of times, and when they go to basketball tournaments it's the worst of times. I drove precisely those types of vehicles. Those vehicles became outlawed in my city quickly enough, but it was done in indirect fashions. For example, school boards required the drivers to hold a particular licence and take out additional insurance prior to getting behind the wheel. Well, if you're the coach and driver and have to absorb the responsibility and costs, I think the lawyers around the table will tell you that sort of puts a chill on enthusiasm for doing other things. Of course, the school boards couldn't afford to assume the additional transportation costs, so programs were curbed.

That didn't stop many operators from engaging in after-sales market development of the vehicle. As I understand it, that is now banned in several places, at least for the kind of use I used to engage in, like many other coaches.

Notwithstanding the fact that this might seem strange to others, now that we've put it on the table I would like us to give this the thorough attention it requires. With all due respect to Monsieur Laframboise, I'm not sure that I'd be able to get that thoroughness of examination by slotting in Transport Canada at the next session when we have an hour of free time. I really think we need to spend much more time getting Transport Canada officials on this and getting the kinds of answers we need.

If Transport Canada is providing the guidelines and regulations, I don't want anybody to come here and try to pull the wool over my eyes—I'm not sure they would. I want to make sure that our effort is as genuine as the people who are the most immediate victims of that tragedy would like parliamentarians to be.

In that spirit, let's defer it until we have what the examination by people who are in the field gives us, so we can more appropriately ask Transport Canada the kinds of questions we want answers to. I wanted to make sure we got it on the table, but I'm asking for a deferral so our judgment of the responses will be much more studious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will ask the committee to table it for now, and it can be brought forward by Mr. Volpe as soon as we get the reports.

We'll go now to Mr. Jean's motion.

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

Has it been circulated to the members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

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

I don't know if people are aware of this, but at least in my province--and I've heard it from several provincial ministers--the navigable waterways act is often a duplication of resources, and it slows up a lot of development. It causes some environmental concerns. And indeed, quite frankly, it is a nightmare in rural Canada. I would like to put this motion that we deal with at least looking at the navigable waterways act and the impact it has on governance, on use, and on environmental protection. I would like to study it. It's an act that goes back over a hundred years in many cases, so it needs something up to date.

To put it into perspective, if I had a ditch, and if this pen--which doesn't float, but it could possibly be a pencil, for my example--floated, that ditch would be a navigable waterway, and it would require a tremendous amount of input by the federal government. The difficulty with that is it's already required by many provincial governments, the same exact work, and it takes sometimes up to two or three years to get something done. This includes building a bridge, building a walkway. Mr. Watson had an example this morning of something that happened in his riding. A little ditch requires just a walkway for pedestrians, but it can't be built and has been held up for some years, simply because it has been deemed a navigable waterway, even though a canoe would never float in it no matter what happened. This is the difficulty.

I've looked at interpretation bulletins. I've looked at different situations. And I think the best thing to do is study it and have all members of this committee do so. I think we do have some free time to do it. For instance, the suggestion of one hour with the department next Thursday may even be possible, to at least get a preliminary on it if we do have time. I know that's a bit fast, but I think it would be appropriate.

I just wanted to mention as well that the minister, even though he's coming to speak on Bill C-23, is also prepared to answer questions on infrastructure, because I know that's been an issue. I would like to see maybe some future meetings deal with the infrastructure aspect, probably some time in the next 30 or 40 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm open to looking at this, but before I commit I would like to see how many meetings and so forth, in the context of other committee business that's being proposed that we're having a meeting coming up for. I'm open if we want to start by having the ministers so the department can come and brief us. That's a good use of time, in my opinion. But I would like to see this in the context of all our committee business. It seems like something that's worthwhile to pursue. The ministerial meeting is good with me.

I'm going to have to bolt right now, but I'm quite comfortable with doing that.

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

I just want to say two things. First, all provinces and territories are in agreement with revamping this. That's my understanding from the department. Second, I think that's a very good idea. I think we could have a briefing from the department, as Mr. Fast has just suggested, if the department is prepared to do so. Then we could decide what to do from there.