Evidence of meeting #18 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I just wanted assurance from the parliamentary secretary, since he is steering this motion, that this is not about sandbagging or inordinately delaying Bill C-310.
It is coming to this committee. It is a little unusual for us to be in anticipation of the will of the House. We are not trying to be in contempt of the House, but if we are thinking it is coming, we would ordinarily deal with it as that business arises and then set parameters for a study. It is a little unusual to have that done ahead of time. We don't have the benefit of the will of the House or of some of the final discussions of the House with respect to this bill.
We want to make sure that we aren't setting up unequal terms that don't follow the spirit of the bill.
All the members of the committee want to have a good discussion on the issue associated with this bill, but I hope that the committee will study it fairly and quickly. I intend to support a motion if the government gives that assurance.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I would like to quickly respond to that.
With the current economic conditions, the global crisis, the uncertainty in the marketplace over the past period of time, the tremendous impact that the airline industry has on Canada and Canadian travellers, especially given that our population density of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 people per square mile is the lowest in the world, the major concern of the government is that this particular motion could cause additional uncertainty if it is passed as it is, despite all the concern raised by the airlines. That is my concern and that is the government's concern.
Mr. Kennedy, because a lot of people are listening to this particular motion and a lot of people are paying particular attention to Bill C-310, I want to ensure that all parties and all listeners recognize that this committee is not going to rubber-stamp it. I want to make sure they recognize that this committee is going to give it due consideration, look at all the international norms and practices, and apply a good opinion back to the House on that basis.
That is the concern.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, that is what's occasioning the concern. The assurance I'm looking for is simply that we're not going to treat this differently in a procedural sense.
From the parliamentary secretary I clearly hear opposition to the bill as it stands. If he has arrived at a conclusion, I think some of the rest of us would like to study it and its implications. There have been previous bills, and we think there is a public good to be addressed here in terms of finding the right balance of travellers' rights versus any impacts on the industry.
Having heard the language that suggests that you've arrived at a conclusion, I just want the assurance that this committee will be able to arrive at its own decisions without the process getting in the way. For example, the word “detailed” is used. I don't suppose we're putting a specific parameter on it, but I want us to try to operate in a spirit of consensus around this motion that we don't have a notice for.
I'm wondering if I can have the assurance that you want a free and open discussion of this bill and that it is not going to prejudice its outcome in any way.
Conservative
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chairman, even with the amendment from Mr. Volpe, I just don't understand the motive of Mr. Jean in bringing this motion in, when we know that this bill is in front of the House. This is a private member's bill, and unless Mr. Harper suggests that this bill should pass.... Every member has seen this bill.
We are pre-planning things. We should probably wait until tomorrow to see what the outcome of that vote is. Every member is privileged and has been given the mandate to represent their constituents. The way I see it is, we don't want to derail the mandate that the House of Commons gives this bill tomorrow.
I have listened to those concerns as well and have told those airline people as well. I travel with these airlines almost twice a week, and I see that there needs to be some kind of passenger rights that should respect their rights as well. Right now, those are not there. Airlines are willing to come forward with changes now. I'm sure this is long overdue on both sides of the issue, from the airlines' viewpoint and in other cases from the passengers' viewpoint. We have to keep it balanced.
But we should have waited until the vote; then we could have brought this motion forward.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
First, we will support the amendment proposed by Mr. Volpe, but I want us to understand each other. I gave the speech on behalf of my party in the House of Commons. All the Bloc Québécois wants is for Bill C-310 to be referred to committee and examined in detail. The advantage of Mr. Jean's motion, as amended by Mr. Volpe, is that it will allow us to get to the bottom of things. I would not want us to rush things. Our intention in supporting Bill C-310 was for it to be referred to committee so that we could discuss it in detail, call witnesses and conduct analyses in order to make a good, fair decision for our airlines. I am okay with that.
But I want to say right away that we will not help rush the bill through. We have no problem with the motion as proposed and as amended by Mr. Volpe. We will conduct a thorough study of this issue, and that is fine. We must make the best decision.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, where are we are now? We've had an amendment presented by Mr. Volpe, and we've had a motion now. So where are we? Is the amendment valid?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's accepted as a friendly amendment, absolutely.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I have that concern as well, that we have to make some delineation of the time we're going to spend on this, just as we do for every other bill.
I'm a little concerned with the word “detailed” as well, and the extent to which we're going to be looking at witnesses coming forward. I suppose we'll have to set those parameters as we get there.
Supporting this motion would not really change the requirement for the committee to meet to discuss how much time we're going to put into this bill. To me, this doesn't really change any of our procedures, because it doesn't outline exactly what “detailed” means.
It suggests there's a study. Does the study take precedence over the movement of the bill through this committee? If we agree to doing a study, are we saying this bill won't progress out of the committee until the study is completed?
Those are my concerns, but I feel that we're still within the purview of the majority of the committee in setting those conditions as we move along.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
For clarification, with all the comments I've received and that I'm sure committee members have received on this bill, I hope we wouldn't do anything in haste, because I think the decisions we make on this particular bill and this issue are going to impact the industry for a long period of time. I would advise that we take our time and make sure we're fully satisfied at the end of the process that we've accepted the bill or amended it to what is best.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, again for clarification, we're not addressing the work order in this motion. This is of broader intent, and we can all rest assured that we'll come back to the study plan and get to what we want to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Absolutely.
I'm going to call the question.
I will advise members that I have the next two meetings booked for studying high-speed rail, but we will have a subcommittee sometime in there so that we can finalize where we are going to go with this.
We have a motion put forward by Mr. Jean that has been amended by Mr. Volpe, and the amendment has been accepted as a friendly amendment.
I would ask all those in favour of the amendment of Mr. Volpe to so signify.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Now we're going to go back to questions of our guests. Where were we?
Mr. Mayes.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their patience.
I have three questions.
I spent some time in Japan and I experienced a typhoon there. It was rather interesting. This weather event shut the rail system down for a couple of days. Considering that we live in the great white north, I wonder how reliable high-speed rail is in Canada. Is there a snow/ice conflict with high-speed rail?
That's my first question. Do you want to deal with that one right away?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
In looking at the technology options we've asked the consultants to consider, that is a real concern for us. We want to make sure that what they're going to come forward with as realistic options are tested technologies. There are countries that maybe don't live in as big a white north as ours, but that are operating in winter conditions in which they have snow and ice. Those might be better. We just want to avoid a new technology that still has to be tested and isn't tried. That's a very real concern for us.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The next question I have is, what is the interest rate threshold on capital invested that would make your model projections work and would be self-sustaining over 30 years? Do you have a threshold?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
We haven't gotten to that point yet. That's part of the advice on the financial business case that the consultants will be doing for us.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
My final question is this. It's important, when you frame corridor plans, to talk with municipalities, because they have to incorporate them in their community plans. Has there been any work at all done with the communities along this corridor?