Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2018

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin, we're moving on to your motion.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

As I said earlier, Greyhound's service in western Canada ended yesterday. Market forces being what they are, the most lucrative routes are sometimes taken up by other companies. They might not offer exactly the same type of service, but the service will cover 80% or 90% of the routes. That means that entire communities, mostly rural ones, including indigenous communities, will be left without service for the remaining 10% to 20% of the routes.

Right now, we have no idea what Transport Canada intends to do to resolve this situation. I consider this an essential service. All communities need the service for reasons of work, health, family travel, and so forth.

In question period yesterday, I was just stunned when the Prime Minister answered me by saying that we “[...] are open to considering avenues toward finding effective solutions [...]”.

We have known for several months now that the service will be ending. When we hear the day after the service ended that we “are open to considering avenues toward finding effective solutions”, that means there is nothing on the table.

I still hope I am wrong, and that is why I would like to hear from the minister so we can discuss this.

My motion is as follows:

Given that public transit is an essential service and that the end date Greyhound announced for its bus services in some Western provinces has arrived, the Committee requests that the Minister of Transport appear before the Committee as soon as possible to share his solutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any discussion?

On November 22, we will have Minister Garneau here. He has unofficially confirmed for an hour, but he will be here on the 22nd. If he can come earlier, I guess he'll have to let us know.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Aubin's motion?

(Motion agreed to)

We will move on to Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Yes, Madam Chair. This goes back to a motion we discussed but didn't act on a number of months ago, with respect to a study of bus passenger safety. I believe we have tabled it.

I would like to move it, but I believe one of my colleagues has some friendly amendments to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes.

[Churence Rogers, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.]

Madam Chair, I watched a TV show about school bus safety a few days ago with great interest. I'm not sure if it was The Fifth Estate or Marketplace. They talked about many jurisdictions where school bus safety has been improved by introducing seat belts on school buses. When I watched and heard the numbers of children who had been tragically killed or severely injured, I thought that maybe this was something our committee should take a look at.

The current rules were done back in the 1980s, and I think today, with the changing world we're in, particularly in rural Canada.... I have children now in my riding who are travelling up to an hour a day on busy highways, under some very difficult conditions in the wintertime. It concerns me. After watching that show, I felt that we should at least give this thing some time and attention.

I'm recommending that we look at Mr. Hardie's motion and amend it to say “no less than four meetings” and that we include school buses.

That is the amendment I am proposing to this particular motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have no problem on the substance of the motion or with the proposed amendment. I am concerned, however, that work is piling up on our desk and deadlines are getting tighter. I would remind you that I tabled a motion and that it was adopted. The purpose was to conduct a study of rail passengers in particular. Now it is being postponed more and more, but not eliminated. I know it is still in the cards and on your mind, Madam Chair, but we all know that we will be leaving in June to prepare for the election. Can we look at our order of business?

I have no problem being hurried along when the House refers bills to us. That is expected. That is our job. On the other hand, we are tabling motions and thereby creating work for ourselves. Perhaps we will never have too much work, but I think we have to at least follow the order of business our committee has agreed upon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would say on the record that we certainly do support the motion that Mr. Hardie has brought forward, as well as the amendment to it.

Once again, we recognize that this was a motion that we were asked to consider six months ago. Due to sensitivity and Mr. Hardie's graciousness in setting it aside, we said we would revisit it later. It was something that was highlighted half a year ago, albeit on the heels of a bus tragedy.

I would suggest that if we do think this is something that is urgent, we may want to put it onto the agenda sooner than some of the other studies that have been recommended. I would suggest that, given the investigative report that was just made public, we need to be paying attention to this issue and studying it sooner rather than later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin, just to go back a bit to the rail issue, if you recall, we had one meeting on the rail safety issues to try to make sure we were being sensitive as we did our trade corridors study by including rail as part of that once we moved forward. It wasn't that we didn't want to do it. We were just trying to involve many things together so that we were respecting everybody's wishes.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Rogers?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have the invitation from finance to study clauses 668 to 747 of Bill C-86.

We should probably go back in camera. Does the committee want to go back in camera for the discussion on Bill C-86?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're in an open session again.

We've had an invitation from Finance to study clauses 668 to 747 of Bill C-86. It is up to the committee. I understand that there have been tentative conversations. The committee is prepared to take up this invitation. We will book a three-hour meeting next Tuesday, so that our meeting will be extended an extra hour next Tuesday morning.

We have received some witnesses. We haven't had any witnesses from Mr. Aubin yet, but we have received witnesses from both Conservatives and Liberals. Transport Canada has unofficially confirmed that they would be here for the first hour. We're still looking for six more witnesses if we're going to do two panels of three, if that's the direction.

Kelly.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I recognize that the practice of breaking out parts of the BIA legislation is a practice that's been taking place, certainly since the last Parliament. We're pleased to study these particular clauses in BIA 2. I can well imagine why the finance committee has asked us to take this task on, given the very large size of BIA 2. I think it is now the largest omnibus bill around a budget implementation act that this Parliament may have had put to it.

We agree to do this. I would, however, say that I think the timelines are very tight in terms of being able to do meaningful work. We are trying to get this done in one meeting. I would suggest that we should not schedule the Department of Transport for a whole hour, given that we are only giving three hours to this meeting. That would allow us to hear from more witnesses in terms of the impact that this legislation might have on their industry.

I would suggest that we try to ensure that we hear from as many witnesses as possible, thereby limiting what we hear from the Department of Transport to a much shorter time period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Yes, I just want to support what my colleague said in terms of the study of this bill. When I was first elected three years ago, I had the pleasure working on the finance committee. We on the finance committee asked, I think on the first budget, something like six committees to study parts of the bill because it was so voluminous. I think only two of the committees took it up. I'm pleased to see that this committee is prepared to study it.

I am concerned, though, of the timeline, and I'm wondering if there's any ability to ask the chair of the finance committee, considering the fact that we have the break week in there, if they could give us a little more time. From what I see of these particular sections, I envision that some of the testimony we could receive for this study could help us in our corridors study, because we are talking about, if I understand it correctly, marine traffic in that part of the bill.

I think there would be some other benefit to other work that we're doing, but quite frankly, we're going to have a tough time getting much in the way of input in one meeting. Because of the short notice, I suspect that people aren't going to be available.

Would the chair consider asking the chair of the finance committee if we could have additional time? I don't know what we have scheduled right after our break week, but is there a chance we could get at least one meeting that week devoted to this particular study?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They have asked us to report back by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

That's the middle of the break week, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's right.

We're going into November 6 now—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt. If we're to report back, when do we get to at least discuss what we're reporting back?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The first two hours would be witnesses, and the third hour could be the balance of the report that we were going to send back. When we did this once before, the letter went back to them saying that we had....

Do you want to speak to it? How did we handle this the last time?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Marie-France Lafleur]

Just to clarify, clause-by-clause will be done in finance, not at our committee. The committee can also do a subject matter report if they wish, like a separate report or a substantive report like they would usually do.

The process we did in March 2017, I believe, was simply a letter back to the chair of finance with our findings.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I'm still having some difficulty. Can we just walk through this step by step? Next Tuesday—if everything goes well—it's been suggested that we have transportation folks for the first hour. Then were you suggesting two hours of witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

There would be two panels of three, which would give us six more witnesses, over and above Transport Canada.