Transport Committee on May 30th, 2016

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I totally understand the first part, although I did know a resolution is the same as a motion; whatever. I totally disagree with the August 1 date. I'll tell you, no producer in Alberta is going to be happy that we're saying that maybe next May or June we might start studying interswitching. If it's that urgent, and I agree it's way up high on the producers' priorities, let's say by November 2016. Let's make it a priority. Then as members we can agree we think it's urgent enough, let's move it forward in our priorities.

I don't agree with saying we're going to study it by August 1, 2017. It's nonsensical. First of all, we don't even meet in July and August, so let's say by December 2016. It will show that we see the urgency in it and we're going to adjust our schedule. That's what I would suggest. Then I'd be happy with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I want to reiterate the comments by Mr. Hardie that the sunsetting is actually on August 1, 2016, not 2017, so I want to be clear about that.

The second point, Madam Chair, if I may, and this is more for the minutes and again I'll be repetitive, should read:

That, prior to August 1, 2017, the Committee undertake a study on viable options to resolve the aforementioned issue on a longer-term or permanent basis, and that the findings of that Committee study be tabled in the House of Commons for consideration and action by the government.

Therefore, it's very clear in terms of why we're doing this, both here at the committee level and finally at the House of Commons level.

Madam Chair, I do want to add that Ms. Duncan's point with respect to time urgency is well taken. Although we do put August 1, 2017 as the deadline for completion of that, there is any time throughout the year that we can actually tackle this issue, based on the priorities that are going to be set forth by the steering committee. This, once again, allows the steering committee to make that priority. I would suggest that when a steering committee does meet, if in fact Ms. Duncan finds this is a priority, that can be a recommendation that comes out of the steering committee back to committee in relation to prioritizing the time frames that we can look at.

I don't think that's a decision for today. I think this motion speaks for itself. There's a reason for this motion. Whether you agree with it or not, it's here. The steering committee can then make the call on prioritizing how fast we actually get those resolutions forward to committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Our analyst, who has always been so brilliant in trying to come up with ways to keep everybody going forward, has suggested that instead of saying “undertake”, we say “complete“ a study.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Great. Rather than starting a study in August 2017.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Regardless, we can decide that on Wednesday, if I could make that suggestion. Why don't we go with what we have today, and on Wednesday when we deal with committee business, we can prioritize exactly what we're going to deal with first in September, so that the department is also ready, as well as anyone who wants to speak to it. We can decide that on Wednesday when we're dealing with committee business.

Mr. Hardie, the last comment.

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

Will we take the analyst's suggestion as a friendly amendment and say “complete a study on the viable options” in section 2?

[An hon. member]

It could be a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is everybody good with that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Hopefully, a decision by the minister will be made well before August 2017, so what's the point of doing a study then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We don't know that, and—

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

We don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

—and we do have a role to play as a committee, which is to—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—or it will sunset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

—process these things to respond to what's necessary. I think we've had enough discussion on it, and I'm going to leave the motion as it is before us. On Wednesday—

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

—with a friendly amendment that says “complete”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right. We're going to have the study completed. All right, so we've amended that, and that should satisfy someone else.

All those in favour of Mr. Badawey's motion.

It carries.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

We have the budget in front of us. I think everybody has a copy of it. It's just to keep us functioning. I need this adopted by the committee,

That a proposed budget in the amount of $1,200.00, for the study of of Supplementary Estimates (A) 2016-17, be adopted.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a question on the budget.

The two conferences concern the meeting we cancelled the last time, correct? The meeting did not take place because we were held up in the House because of events that occurred there. We cancelled the meeting I was to chair. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, yes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That was the study we have just done on our supplementary estimates.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Berthold, to do with our trip to Lac-Mégantic.

Do we want to go in camera for this discussion about going to Lac-Mégantic?

I don't see any interest in doing that. Let's go forward.

Ms. Duncan, will you be attending?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, I said long ago I would. I filled out the form.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I'm at the FCM.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.