Transport Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I wasn't going to speak, but having heard my name mentioned several times—

[An hon. member]

I'm sorry.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That's okay, I thought we could come to a compromise because originally I thought we could extend it to 5:45. I then later on found out that was not possible. Then I realized that one of our members was going to miss the round, and that wasn't fair, so at the last meeting I was trying to figure out some way of compromising. But that didn't quite work out, which is probably why the motion is in front of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. I just want to clarify, and I know the clerk can back me up on this. In the regular one-hour-and-45-minute round, I will guarantee you that not one of you has missed a round of questioning. We went to the end. A couple of times the last Conservative member didn't ask questions, but that was voluntary, so I can tell you nobody was missed.

Now, when you get meetings that are split, like when the minister was here for an hour, or what have you, yes, there may be some complications there, but the Liberal member of the day then gets two opportunities to ask, and maybe that's where the NDP lost some. Anyway, I just wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan has asked for a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Can we just read the motion to be clear on what that is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have the motion in front of you.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

All right, then I'll withdraw. Thank you.

(Motion negatived: nays 6, yeas 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll now move into clause-by-clause.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), as clause 1 only contains a short title, it is postponed. So I will call clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Yes, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were going to have a few moments for some clarifications from the public servants prior to the commencement of clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, they're here at your discretion, so go ahead. What clarification were you wanting, Mr. Poilievre? Was it in regard to clause 2?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It's just the overall drafting of the bill, the impacts of amendments on the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, who would like to comment?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Am I correct that we are allocating a period for that prior to clause-by-clause? That is how I understood the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There is no official presentation from the witnesses, Mr. Poilievre. They're here if—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The agenda actually set aside an hour for that purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're right, the agenda does say that, albeit that wasn't the intent. The witnesses didn't come here with that presentation.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The drafting of legislation likewise has to match intent with wording, so we might have questions to ensure it does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, and that's why they're here. Do you have questions on clause 2?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

No. I understood the questioning was going to be on the bill, in general, prior to clause-by-clause. That's how the agenda reads...“Witnesses”, “Department of Transport”, “3:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.”...and then clause-by-clause was to commence at 4:45 through to 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, what exactly is it that...?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

May I bring some clarity to that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I think what might be useful is just to understand the context of it, because it's even going to tie into the amendments as we go through those as well. Perhaps it's appropriate at this point to ask the officials some questions—they don't have formal presentations—so we get a broad sense of the document. If the chair has no objections, that helps us—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That would be probably, I think, a more valuable use of your time, because then the witnesses will concentrate on your questions.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That was precisely what I was going to say, and I have some questions.

There's a group of recommendations that the shippers originally made before the drafting of the bill, and then later on they suggested amendments: that rather than starting with a service agreement with a blank slate, there would be a template that would assist both the shippers and the rail companies to come to a service agreement, with clear guidelines.

It seems to me that this is a faster, more efficient, and more effective approach. I believe the first group of recommendations in fact do that. Is there any logistical problem with that idea?

This is what we have always requested. When I submitted a private member's bill, it was one of the key areas. When I talked to legislative counsel, they seemed to see no problem with that approach, with having a template, as used in the first group of recommendations.

Are there any drawbacks to that approach?