Evidence of meeting #38 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 amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
No, I don't really see that we should continue when we have a vote coming on.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I would say that the vote is in a half hour, which would put us at about twenty minutes to five. We would resume immediately after that and we would continue until 5:30, subject to the will of the committee. If there's an extension requested, it would have to be agreed to. Okay?
We are suspended. Immediately following the vote, we'll return.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Welcome back.
When we left, the discussion had stopped and I had Mr. Bevington on my list.
Mr. Bevington.
5 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I'd like to recap some of what has happened here.
I think it's clear that the Bloc has forwarded a series of amendments that don't fit with the rules of this House, and they are going to put forward this motion to conclude the work on this bill.
This doesn't speak to the spirit of most of the MPs when they passed this bill. They expected us to come forward with a reasonable case. When you put forward amendments that don't have any chance of standing up to our procedures, you're not doing anything to forward the bill. You are simply providing some kind of cover for yourself when it comes to the actual debate and vote that will take place in the House.
I'm not happy with it. This whole procedure has been handled very badly. We are in the position where we aren't able to reasonably consider the bill. We haven't seen many witnesses for a controversial bill like this, and now we have a motion that will end the discussion completely. I can't see this being helpful, and as such I won't support the bill.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I am going to try to be respectful to my colleagues in the NDP. I have introduced amendments that express the intention we have of providing complete protection for passengers by legislation. The aim was not to try to introduce a bill and avoid it by adding interminable amendments. Trying to please will not make it better.
A little earlier I said that the longer the debate went on the more likely we would reach the foreseeable outcome. To produce a bill that protects passengers' rights we have to have all the players at the table, and that was not done in the case of the bill introduced by the NDP, with all due respect to Mr. Maloway.
This is fine. A member decided to introduce a bill. He probably wanted to make some political hay. But we can't do that on the backs of the airlines and at the expense of passengers. Ultimately, maybe 15% of events will be covered, the rest won't be, and there will be no one held responsible.
I think that when we do have to tackle this issue, all the players will have to be at the table. Obviously, it changed the meaning, and I am sorry about that. I would have liked to be able to do it, and we worked to accomplish that. The evidence is that if you read the amendments, you will see that they have tried to hold the airline company responsible and it could have got reimbursed, but that is not easy.
From the outset, the sponsor of this bill should have understood that it was doomed to fail. I'm sorry that he has had a wake-up call today, that he finds this hard and that he is not happy. That will pass, is all.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It's disappointing for us personally not to be able to address the amendments we wanted to address, but we're dealing with this motion. I guess some of this will be raised in the House.
There is some difference in the translation of the French and English motions. There is a suggestion inherent in the English translation that the hearings were complete and conclusive. I recommend that the English reflect the French,
because in French we see "... après avoir tenu des audiences...".
That means “after having had some consultation or hearings”, and not that the hearings were concluded.
I realize this is an issue where one is hanging one's hat on precision, but precision does count on occasion. This may not be one of them, but it certainly still is for me.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Would it be reasonable to remove the word “concluding”, so it would read “after hearings”?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Yes, but it would be acceptable to have “after some hearings”. That would be more accurate and would better reflect the French.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is that the will of the committee?
Are you okay with that, Monsieur Laframboise?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We will take the word “concluding” out of the English text and insert the word “some”.
Is everybody ready for the question?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It will be a recorded vote, requested by Mr. Volpe. The motion by Mr. Laframboise now reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, and, after some hearings on Bill C-310 (Air Passengers' Bill of Rights), the Committee report that it recommends that the House do not proceed further with Bill C-310 because it makes air carriers responsible for passenger inconveniences and excludes the responsibility of other parties such as an airport authority
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
There are two things I would ask of the committee. I need authorization for a budget that includes the meetings that took place last week. Because the report wasn't accepted as presented by the subcommittee it left a void, so I need a motion. It's going to be distributed to you.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That is the cost of witnesses for the last meeting.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Thank you.
We'll now move on to the second part of the meeting. Mr. Volpe has a motion on the floor. I will turn the floor over to Mr. Volpe.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colleagues will recall that several weeks ago an issue surfaced about moneys spent or allocated by VIA Rail to a company in Wisconsin to provide services that had until then been provided by Canadian companies resident in Montreal and New Brunswick. I would like the committee to take a look at how the procurement practices of VIA Rail come to play in an issue where infrastructure dollars are involved. These moneys were allocated to VIA Rail to upgrade the system or the service, and to do it in the context of the intention for which the moneys had been allocated.
We don't know exactly how the process developed. We don't know how the decision was made. We don't know whether in fact the Wisconsin company was sufficiently well equipped to provide the service that had been provided by Canadian companies to that stage. I'd like us to hold at least a couple of hearings where we can bring in VIA Rail officials to explain how that's done, and maybe those Canadian companies, if not the Wisconsin company, to see why they weren't able to compete and why the other ones provide so-called “better service”.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
From the government's position it's an excellent proposal. We'd like to see it go forward as well.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That's okay with us.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]